Forums | MacLife

Is the solution to not allow coffee to be sold, becuase of the potential for harm? Or only iced coffee? What about the potential for choking on ice cubes? What if I switch to iced coffee because of the extreme heat of regular coffee and in drinking the iced coffee, choke on an ice cube.

I see...yet another person who does not understand varying degrees of temperature (translation: "hot") nor varying degrees of burn injury.

I'll ask you a final time, matt (this is probably the 5th time I've posed this question to you in this thread):

Is there any temperature at which you would believe a restaurant would be negligent for serving it's food or beverage?  Would it be inappropriate to serve boiling hot soup to a customer?

If a *significant number* of people sustained serious injuries because of the way a product was sold, and if it was not clear that such injuries were possible, then yes, a vendor should be held as negligible for selling a dangerous product. But it's not automatically the vendor's fault if a customer hurts themself with something they purchased.

What if a McDonald's employee had spilt the coffee, here?  Then would the temperature of the coffee be important, in your mind?

If McDonald's had done something to make their restaurant unsafe, such as leaving the floor wet without putting up a visible sign, hiring someone who could not reasonably be expected to hold hot coffee, and if that resulted in coffee being spilled on someone, then McDonald's should be held liable for having an unsafe store. If there were numerous reports of people being severely burned by McDonald's coffee due to negligence, then McDonald's should be held liable.

If a McDonald's employee spilled coffee on someone and harmed them, then the temperature of the coffee should not be as relevant as the actual fact that someone was harmed due to the actions of another person. If this harm was caused by negligence on the part of McDonald's, they should be sued. If not, the employee would be the responsible party.

The issue is that coffee as such is in fact a boiling liquid that people drink for pleasure.

Hmmm...."boiling" would be around 212 degrees, no?

Of course, they might as well serve it boiling.  Everyone knows it's "hot," so anyone who spills it is a dumbass and deserves what they get!

So you're saying that if the coffee was lowered to the recommended temperature and she spilled it on herself taht she wouldn't get burned?

OF course not!  The difference is the SEVERITY OF THIS BURN INJURY!  Her injury was much MORE SERIOUS than it would have been had they followed the standard!

Unless the coffee were iced I would imagine that she would get burned regardless. As a test, and I highly recommend this for you - go to starbucks where the coffee is the correct temperature. GEt a grande latte, or grandisssimo. And then pour it on your genitals.

Lets see what happens.

What is up with this place today...have you two been taking tips on debating from cyberpawz?

Educate yourself on the facts at issue here, or please move on.

If a *significant number* of people sustained serious injuries because of the way a product was sold, and if it was not clear that such injuries were possible, then yes, a vendor should be held as negligible for selling a dangerous product. But it's not automatically the vendor's fault if a customer hurts themself with something they purchased.

Fine.  Name your "significant number."  How often do you believe coffee is accidently spilled? 

What if a comparable restaurant had 90% less cases of serious coffee burns per 100,000 customers?  What if, compared to the rest of the industry (you know, everyone else who served their coffee at around 150 degrees) McDonald's had FAR MORE injuries related to coffee than anyone else?

The issue is that coffee as such is in fact a boiling liquid that people drink for pleasure.

Hmmm...."boiling" would be around 212 degrees, no?

Of course, they might as well serve it boiling.  Everyone knows it's "hot," so anyone who spills it is a dumbass and deserves what they get!

I meant boiling the way warin meant molten lava. figuratively

So you're saying that if the coffee was lowered to the recommended temperature and she spilled it on herself taht she wouldn't get burned?

yes.  180 produces sever burns in seconds.  150 takes much longer.  Long enough to actually do something about it.  Yes, if she were to leave a pool of 150 degree coffee in her crotch for a minute, she'd have the same burns.  Obviously this wouldn't happen.  With 180 degree coffee, she just had to spill it and would be instantly burned.

but thank you for playing.

i think you should time that. I question whether it would take a minute versus say 20 seconds. But cleasrly the best way to see how long it takes is to actually test it. With your genitals. As you are suggesting there will be little to no harm you should have no problem offering your genitals or your face up for science. I'll supply the coffee.

How about this. What if everything occured the way it did, but instead of getting 3rd degree burns she only got second degree burns? Would mcdonalds then not be liable?

What if when pouring the coffee on your genitals at 150 degrees you only get first degree burns. Is that considered a safe product then? But why? It gave you first degree burns. Does that mean that the recommened temperature has to be lowered so that you get no burns when spilling a coffee on your genitals?

i think you should time that. I question whether it would take a minute versus say 20 seconds. But cleasrly the best way to see how long it takes is to actually test it. With your genitals. As you are suggesting there will be little to no harm you should have no problem offering your genitals or your face up for science.

Now you're simply being obtuse.  C'mon everlong...I know you can do better than this.  These facts have been gone over, and the industry standard existed at around 150 degrees BECAUSE it was a desirable temperature for the product while at the same time MINIMIZING possible burns that could result from its spillage.

How about this. What if everything occurred the way it did, but instead of getting 3rd degree burns she only got second degree burns? Would mcdonalds then not be liable?

What if when pouring the coffee on your genitals at 150 degrees you only get first degree burns. Is that considered a safe product then? But why? It gave you first degree burns. Does that mean that the recommened temperature has to be lowered so that you get no burns when spilling a coffee on your genitals?

A first degree burn is not a third degree burn.  If someone slipped on a wet floor and scratched their arm, would they be as likely to sue then if they had broken their arm?

The very reason they WERE liable was because an INDUSTRY STANDARD existed and McDonald's chose to deviate from it.  From my experience, a company would be much, much less likely to be held liable in an accident if the safety standards they were following were the established industry norm.

i think you should time that. I question whether it would take a minute versus say 20 seconds. But cleasrly the best way to see how long it takes is to actually test it. With your genitals. As you are suggesting there will be little to no harm you should have no problem offering your genitals or your face up for science.

Now you're simply being obtuse.  C'mon everlong...I know you can do better than this.  These facts have been gone over, and the industry standard existed at around 150 degrees BECAUSE it was a desirable temperature for the product while at the same time MINIMIZING possible burns that could result from its spillage.

How about this. What if everything occurred the way it did, but instead of getting 3rd degree burns she only got second degree burns? Would mcdonalds then not be liable?

What if when pouring the coffee on your genitals at 150 degrees you only get first degree burns. Is that considered a safe product then? But why? It gave you first degree burns. Does that mean that the recommened temperature has to be lowered so that you get no burns when spilling a coffee on your genitals?

A first degree burn is not a third degree burn.  If someone slipped on a wet floor and scratched their arm, would they be as likely to sue then if they had broken their arm?

The very reason they WERE liable was because an INDUSTRY STANDARD existed and McDonald's chose to deviate from it.  From my experience, a company would be much, much less likely to be held liable in an accident if the safety standards they were following were the established industry norm.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being everlong  Obtuse is the guy with the stapler as an avatar (and the red balls from the coffee poured down his pants),

And if they are liable for a first degree burn (which would be unlikely as that would be a reasonable expectation for anyone to have when drinking a hot beverage), the damage and pain and suffering would amount to little fiscal amount, making it a non-issue.

And in advance here's webmd's talk of the difference in burns "Third-degree burns, also called full-thickness burns, are the most  serious burns and injure all skin layers and the fatty tissue layer under the  skin. The skin's ability to regrow is damaged.

Pain may be very severe or, if nerves are burned, at first there  may be no pain at all. Third-degree burns can look white, cherry red, or black,  and they do not change color when you press on them (they do not blanch).  Blisters may be present, but the burn is dry, hard, and leathery  looking.

Third-degree burns may be caused by contact with steam, hot oil,  grease, certain chemicals, or an electrical current, or by soaking or immersion  in a hot liquid.

Infection is a major concern with third-degree burns. These burns  always require an evaluation by a health professional. With small burns, new  skin sometimes grows in from unburned areas. Large burns may require skin grafts and surgery may be needed to remove scars."

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being everlong  Obtuse is the guy with the stapler as an avatar (and the red balls from the coffee poured down his pants),

That was an unfortunate choice of word on my part, being as though obtuse is the only one of you with any sense!

Second degree burns would not necessarily require hospitalization, and would heal without treatment, so the question of liability greatly decreases.  And if you doubt my numbers, tough.

Not  necessarily, but what if it did?
And its nto that I doubt your numbers, I would just love to have someone pour hot coffee on your balls..  

Don't worry though, the temperature would be in complicance with industry norms, so you'd be fine. 

OK, mods, this is clearly over the line.  Please ban everlong.  Smilies do not excuse this language.

Cmon, there was not even a veiled threat in those words. And not only did I post one smiley I posted two just to show I wasn't serious.

What is up with this place today...have you two been taking tips on debating from cyberpawz?

I'm not sure what you mean? What does Cyberpawz do when posting?