More of What's Wrong with Our Litigious Society

[Firethorn]

If I remember right,  the industry standard for coffee was around 180 degrees, and McDonalds served theirs at well over 225.

212F is boiling.  You're not reaching 225 without a rather heavily built coffee container.

That said, we went over this fairly recently.  McDonalds was serving at 180-190F.  "Industry Standard", what there is, was 175-185F.  When a news agency did a 'study' by ordering coffee around the area, they got 150F-200F, with 3 places hotter than the McDonalds in question.

While I'm not certain, I'm pretty sure surface tension can cause hotter than boiling water to remain liquid.  Seems to be implicated in lots of scalding injuries.

Maybe a resident science person can tell us

Yes, you can superheat water in very specific conditions.  One of them is that the water needs to be highly pure - IE not be coffee.

Company policy at the time was to serve the coffee at 185 degrees, which they did.  185 degree liquid is hot enough to cause third degree burns, and presents a serious scalding hazard.

The problem with this is that it turns out that 185F is actually pretty close to the "industry standard" of 180F.  Coffeeheads go nuts if you attempt to force them to accept the "safe" temperature of 150F suggested by the woman's lawyers.

[T.O.M.]

And as Firethorn points out, this is the fun of litigation.  The industry standard is 180 degrees for brewing.  Is a company liable for serving above that temperature?  This woman was badly burned.  Is the company liable just because she was badly injured, even if the coffee was at an industry standard temperature when they handed the cup to her?  And what responsibility, if any, does the woman bear for placing the cup between her thighs?
Now, consider that more and more, judges are being encouraged to send issues like these to a jury to decide. 

So, you have your jury of normal people who hear about and see the injuries.  They hear how 185 degree liquid is dangerous, and a real risk to cause burns/scalds.  They're going to put themselves in that situation, imagine sticking the cup in their lap (we've all done it), and imagine the burns.  No matter how much the defense team is going to argue about the industry standards, or her negligence for holding the cup in her lap, it's not going to overcome the thoughts of a burned crotch.  I once read that a good layer tries facts to a judge, but emotions to a jury.  That's what they did, and McDonalds paid for it.

[KD5NRH]

The industry standard is 180 degrees for brewing.

What industry?  Bunn says 195-205, and they're pretty much the industry standard for commercial coffemakers.  http://www.bunnomatic.com/dr-brew-blog/brew-temperature

Is the company liable just because she was badly injured, even if the coffee was at an industry standard temperature when they handed the cup to her?

At what point does an injury become bad enough?  IMO, it should be based solely on the level of negligence involved.  For example, I ate at an Arby's with wooden handles on the trash cans (pull to open, rather than the regular swing) that were so filthy and worn that I wouldn't touch them and just left my trash on top of the can.  If I'd gotten a splinter from the handle, IMO, Arby's should be fully liable for all costs due to negligent sanitation and maintenance, whether it's a pair of tweezers and some peroxide or hospitalization for some horrible infection caused by that revolting wood getting under the skin.  If, OTOH, a leper had just broken the handle minutes before, that shouldn't be Arby's issue. 

And what responsibility, if any, does the woman bear for placing the cup between her thighs?

Pretty much all of it.  If you put a running chainsaw between your legs, it's not Husqvarna's fault when you win a Darwin award.

So, you have your jury of normal people who hear about and see the injuries.  They hear how 185 degree liquid is dangerous, and a real risk to cause burns/scalds.

And they should get to see the plaintiff's attorney messily executed for claiming that 185 is too hot for coffee.

[Hawkmoon]

They're going to put themselves in that situation, imagine sticking the cup in their lap (we've all done it), and imagine the burns.

Speak for yourself, your Honor. Some of us have NOT done it.

[T.O.M.]

What industry?  Bunn says 195-205, and they're pretty much the industry standard for commercial coffemakers.  http://www.bunnomatic.com/dr-brew-blog/brew-temperature

At what point does an injury become bad enough?  IMO, it should be based solely on the level of negligence involved.  For example, I ate at an Arby's with wooden handles on the trash cans (pull to open, rather than the regular swing) that were so filthy and worn that I wouldn't touch them and just left my trash on top of the can.  If I'd gotten a splinter from the handle, IMO, Arby's should be fully liable for all costs due to negligent sanitation and maintenance, whether it's a pair of tweezers and some peroxide or hospitalization for some horrible infection caused by that revolting wood getting under the skin.  If, OTOH, a leper had just broken the handle minutes before, that shouldn't be Arby's issue. 

Pretty much all of it.  If you put a running chainsaw between your legs, it's not Husqvarna's fault when you win a Darwin award.

And they should get to see the plaintiff's attorney messily executed for claiming that 185 is too hot for coffee.

Thanks.  You gave an excellent example of the gamble that is the jury system.  You picked apart the liability attributed to McDonalds and placed liability on the plaintiff.  A couple more jurors like you, and the case would have gone the other way.  The uncertainty of how a majority of the jurors will vote makes settlement appealing,  and litigation so addictive to trial lawyers.

[De Selby]

What industry?  Bunn says 195-205, and they're pretty much the industry standard for commercial coffemakers.  http://www.bunnomatic.com/dr-brew-blog/brew-temperature

At what point does an injury become bad enough?  IMO, it should be based solely on the level of negligence involved.  For example, I ate at an Arby's with wooden handles on the trash cans (pull to open, rather than the regular swing) that were so filthy and worn that I wouldn't touch them and just left my trash on top of the can.  If I'd gotten a splinter from the handle, IMO, Arby's should be fully liable for all costs due to negligent sanitation and maintenance, whether it's a pair of tweezers and some peroxide or hospitalization for some horrible infection caused by that revolting wood getting under the skin.  If, OTOH, a leper had just broken the handle minutes before, that shouldn't be Arby's issue. 

Pretty much all of it.  If you put a running chainsaw between your legs, it's not Husqvarna's fault when you win a Darwin award.

And they should get to see the plaintiff's attorney messily executed for claiming that 185 is too hot for coffee.

Couldn't agree more.  Also, those darned cyclists all know that they'll be injured if they ride enough on the roads.

You wear that risk on principle because it's foreseeable, right?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I was in the industry at the time. There are examples of egregious abuse of the courts. The macdonalds case is not a good example if one examines the actual facts not the hype

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[KD5NRH]

Couldn't agree more.  Also, those darned cyclists all know that they'll be injured if they ride enough on the roads.

You wear that risk on principle because it's foreseeable, right?

If I ram my bike into a car that's operating legally, yes.  OTOH, most cyclists are injured in the equivalent of the drive through worker neglecting the cup and simply emptying a fresh pot of coffee into her lap.  Little bit different action there.

[KD5NRH]

I was in the industry at the time.

There was an industry built around pouring hot coffee on one's own genitals?  I'm so glad it was short lived enough that I missed it entirely.

[K Frame]

"Yes, you can superheat water in very specific conditions.  One of them is that the water needs to be highly pure - IE not be coffee."

You can superheat tap or filtered water in a microwave. It doesn't have to be super pure/distilled at all, but yeah, I think the microsolids that are part of a cup of coffee would provide ample nucleation points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0

[dogmush]

There was an industry built around pouring hot coffee on one's own genitals?  I'm so glad it was short lived enough that I missed it entirely.

Rule 34

[Firethorn]

You can superheat tap or filtered water in a microwave. It doesn't have to be super pure/distilled at all, but yeah, I think the microsolids that are part of a cup of coffee would provide ample nucleation points.

In this case I'd argue that I know that - it's just that my standards of "clean" are perhaps a bit less than your's.  Water out of a tap, depending on location, is "highly" pure water, at least compared to coffee, orange juice, mud, lake water, and the ilk.

It's not "super" pure as I rate "super" above "highly".  If I'd meant distilled I'd have said that.

[K Frame]

So define your terms.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[MechAg94]

So define your terms.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Do you two need to name seconds also?

[Firethorn]

So define your terms.

I just did.  I didn't think people would consider 'highly' pure as 'distilled' in the context I used it in.

I meant 'highly pure' as compared to stuff like coffee.

[K Frame]

I just did.  I didn't think people would consider 'highly' pure as 'distilled' in the context I used it in.

I meant 'highly pure' as compared to stuff like coffee.

Actually, you didn't. Neither of us did.

Highly and super are superlatives -- which by definition have an undefined nature.

Meaning that distilled water is both highly and super pure.

[De Selby]

I just did.  I didn't think people would consider 'highly' pure as 'distilled' in the context I used it in.

I meant 'highly pure' as compared to stuff like coffee.

According to Wikipedia coffee is capable of superheating.