Forums | MacLife

I would just love to have someone pour hot coffee on your balls..

6) No direct personal threats.
- No threats of death, bodily harm, theft, harm of family or friends, etc.

Take it up with Oatie.

Except it wasn't posed as a threat at all.

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?

I just find it rather annoying when someone continues to nail home some "point" without responding to questions raised concerning that point by other posters.

Take, for instance, the fact that you have been completely silent on:

1.  the fact that other resturants followed those guidelines that suggested coffee be served at a lower temperature.  McDonald's ignored this, even after being warned.

2.  the fact that McDonald's admitted to this, and even the reasons why they did it (to save money).  Furthermore, they admitted they were content to pay damages for such injuries rather than change their practices (before this lawsuit).  The judge noted this in the trial transcript, as well (I also posted that earlier).

BTW: that "some coffee site" is the one for the National COFFEE Association of USA, Inc--perhaps these folks might have just a tiny bit of expertise on coffee? Did they teach you to be dismissive of relevant details as well?

The standard was 150 for restaurants.  It's been gone over, and over and over.  It was suggested by health departments and the restuarant industry in general.  It was the temperature that others in the industry adhered to. 

The standard of home or personal preparation of coffee matters little as far as business concerns and safety issues go.  This is a quite obvious distinction.  But hey, bookmark that page buddy.  Hell, make it your homepage.  I couldn't care less.



You know nothing about what I've been taught in school.  One could be contributorily negligent in MANY situations...that does not mean that an other involved party is necessarily indemnified from ANY liability whatsoever.

Most of this appears to be lost on you.  So go back and enjoy your National Coffee Association (     ) webpage.  Therein lies all the answers!

apparently the concept of personal responsibility was drummed out of your head as part of that curriculum

That's like taking the asinine position that a car company who designs a  faulty gas tank would not be liable from an explosion in a 10 mph accident because the driver stopped short causing the car behind them to rear-end them.

Yes, the woman accidently spilled her coffee.  Had the coffee been at the industry standard temperature for RESTAURANTS, she would not have been injured nearly as badly as she was.

Using your logic, the coffee (or any other food product) could be served at ANY temperature because a spill of the product itself would be the sole fault of the person who spilled it, and thus the business itself could never be responsible from serious injuries caused by it.

I have a very hard time believing it's as small a problem as claimed. My purely anecdotal evidence has about 5 local examples of total crap that was nothing more than a scam on the 'deep' pockets.

Over what period of time and in comparison to what total number of suits? Out of those 5, how many of them were thrown out? How many were awarded in favor of the plaintiff? The media plays up this stuff because it's propaganda whic  is based on a straw man argument intended to engender public support for making it more difficult to sue. . . another form of de-facto deregulation ultimately aimed at reducing the legitimate damands made on corporate entities.

It's amazing how many peeps are willing to accept spurious arguments aimed at causing them to vote against their own socio-economic self interest.

Local people I know personally, no media involvement whatsoever, appx 10 years or so.
3 settlements out of court, 1 the company told them to take a hike, the other didn't pass muster with the court.
All we're basically the persons own stupidity for not watching what they were doing, i.e. slipping on ice in the parking lot for example.

All we're basically the persons own stupidity for not watching what they were doing, i.e. slipping on ice in the parking lot for example.

What about a puddle or a broken container on the floor of a store...never the store's responsibility?

Someone is careless in assuming that they won't suddenly lose their footing and fall while walking through a grocery store?

I'll use the stairway example again.  If my landlord allows a stairway in her building to be completely dark at night, should she be responsible for someone accidently falling down those stairs (even if YOU are certain you'd be more careful)?

According to tPediatrics Journal 140 degree water can cause full thickness (3rd degree)burns to adult skins in 6 seconds. That is far lower than obtuses' statement that it would take 60 seconds to cause 3rd degree burns.
At 150 degrees F., skin is scalded in just 2 seconds. A childs skin is subject to scalding in less time than an adults.

Take it up with whatever agency established those numbers in the case at hand...the one's adhered to by others in the industry.

We didn't just make this smurf up, it's from the case itself.

So this is like the scene in My Cousin Vinnie where the guys grits cook faster on a stove than all teh other grits in the world?

150 degrees is fricking hot. If you pour coffee or any liquid on your skin at temperature you will scald yourself. I'd imagine that if it were 180 degrees you would scald yourself too.

But that doesn't change the fact that even at 150 F which is the recommended temp to sell coffee it is a danger to spill it on yourself. If the coffee were 150 degrees, adn she got 3rd degree burns, which is very possible, she would still sue mcdonalds and you would still say mcdonalds was liable, because she would still have 3rd degree burns (potentially) and would still have been damaged by the product.

Then the argument would be that 150 degrees is too hot and needs to be lowered. THe solution must be to take such a dangerous product off the market place.

So this is like the scene in My Cousin Vinnie where the guys grits cook faster on a stove than all teh other grits in the world?

150 degrees is fricking hot. If you pour coffee or any liquid on your skin at temperature you will scald yourself. I'd imagine that if it were 180 degrees you would scald yourself too.

But that doesn't change the fact that even at 150 F which is the recommended temp to sell coffee it is a danger to spill it on yourself. If the coffee were 150 degrees, adn she got 3rd degree burns, which is very possible, she would still sue mcdonalds and you would still say mcdonalds was liable, because she would still have 3rd degree burns (potentially) and would still have been damaged by the product.

Then the argument would be that 150 degrees is too hot and needs to be lowered. THe solution must be to take such a dangerous product off the market place.

You should be a lawyer.

[Damn, shouldda quoted the first time]

But that doesn't change the fact that even at 150 F which is the recommended temp to sell coffee it is a danger to spill it on yourself. If the coffee were 150 degrees, adn she got 3rd degree burns, which is very possible, she would still sue mcdonalds and you would still say mcdonalds was liable, because she would still have 3rd degree burns (potentially) and would still have been damaged by the product.

Then the argument would be that 150 degrees is too hot and needs to be lowered.

Ummmm....NO. 

I'm arguing that McDonald's is liable BECAUSE THEY DEVIATED FROM THE INDUSTRY STANDARD...NOT simply because they woman was burned by the coffee.

And if you honestly believe that her injuries would have been as serious with the coffee being served 35-40 degrees cooler, so be it.  I won't be able to say a thing to convince you otherwise.

But the industry standard can still cause burns in 2 seconds at the temperature they sell coffee at. In other words, if she spilled coffee on herself and it were 150 degrees, she most likely still would have burned herself very badly.

Why not suggest that coffee should be served no hotter than 100 degrees? That way the risks of burning is minimal?

But that doesn't change the fact that even at 150 F which is the recommended temp to sell coffee it is a danger to spill it on yourself. If the coffee were 150 degrees, adn she got 3rd degree burns, which is very possible, she would still sue mcdonalds and you would still say mcdonalds was liable, because she would still have 3rd degree burns (potentially) and would still have been damaged by the product.

Then the argument would be that 150 degrees is too hot and needs to be lowered.

Ummmm....NO. 

I'm arguing that McDonald's is liable BECAUSE THEY DEVIATED FROM THE INDUSTRY STANDARD...NOT simply because they woman was burned by the coffee.

And if you honestly believe that her injuries would have been as serious with the coffee being served 35-40 degrees cooler, so be it.  I won't be able to say a thing to convince you otherwise.

LEts say a person spilled coffee on their lap and it was 150 degrees fahrenheit, and they suffered 3rd degree burns because 150 degrees can cause burns on skin in about 2 seconds. Would a company that sold a cup of coffee at the industry standard temperature, which still caused injury be liable? Why or why not?

McDonalds knew before this accident that burn hazards exist with any foods served at 140 degrees too. We can keep lowering the temperature,b ut the fact remains that serving hot foods and or beverages potentially can cause burns because hot things burn people if they spill said foods on themselves.

sometimes MiniThink feels like a finite number of monkies with an infinite amount of time to argue nonesense.

But I read it anyway, because I need to kill time at work.

But the industry standard can still cause burns in 2 seconds at the temperature they sell coffee at. In other words, if she spilled coffee on herself and it were 150 degrees, she most likely still would have burned herself very badly.

Why not suggest that coffee should be served no hotter than 100 degrees? That way the risks of burning is minimal?

As you'll notice, the standard was lower than what I said initially...135-140.  Yes, she could still be burned but it wouldn't be nearly as bad!

I'm not attempting to set the standard, everlong.  I'm saying that a business who deviates from "the standard" (often set through past court decisions and often done so for SOCIAL POLICY reasons) should be held liable for injuries resulting from that deviation.  For the 200th time.

If the standard were 140 and the women got burnt and the company met the standard, it wouldn't stop a lawyer from suing, only on the grounds that the standard itself was unsafe.

Adherence to an established safety standard will generally keep one from being found negligent in relation to that standard.