Vox Humana wrote:

> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> .. .
>=20
>>Kyle Phillips wrote:
>>
>>>"Vox Humana" > ha scritto
>>>
>>> I think it will be an interesting case.
>>>
>>>>Hopefully people won't distort the facts like they always do with the=

>>>>McDonald's litigation resulting from burns from insanely hot coffee.
>>>
>>>You're referring to the woman who got a cup of coffee from the
>>>drivethru window and couldn't think of a better place to put it than
>>>between her thighs? A bump and... Ouch!
>>>
>>>Kyle
>>
>>IIRC the elderly woman who filed the coffee lawsuit did not go through =
the
>>drive-thru. She just spilled coffee in her lap.
>>

Look here for a synoptic recounting of the story:=20
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Corporation>

And it looks like others want a piece of that kind of action:=20
<http://tinyurl.com/48ypv>

> Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream.=
The
> drive parked the car so she could add the cream.=20

Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs=20
to remove the top to add other ingredients.

> The coffee spilled,
> causing 3rd degree burns to her genital area.

It's not so simple as "the coffee spilled." The cup was crushed in the=20
process of removal of the lid. She did it. It didn't just happen by=20
itself. Styro cups are weak-walled. All of them.

> The woman was hospitalized
> for about two weeks, suffered immense pain, and had to have therapy
> afterwards. She initially only asked to be reimbursed for her medial b=
ills
> which amounted to about $20K. Over 750 other people had reported burns=
to
> McDonalds.=20

How about get real here...

The premise of her not being responsible operates on the basic=20
assumption that McDonald's (and everyone else) has to provide you what=20
you want without your having to take any responsibility for its=20
disposition. They give you a cup of coffee. What you do with it after=20
that is up to you. The assumption here is that McDonald's had the=20
*obligation* to remove *all* hazard from the environment, even in the=20
case of stupid actions by its customers. According to this, McD should=20
have tried to get to zero possibility of injury, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR=20
CUSTOMERS DID.

Some facts:

McD's sells something over a million, three hundred thousand cups of=20
coffee a day. In the 10 years referred to in court, they had 700=20
complaints. 3,650 days times 1.35 million and they got 700 complaints.=20
4,927,500,000 cups of coffee and 700 complaints. Almost 5,000,000,000=20
- BILLION - cups of coffee and after every SEVEN MILLION one person=20
was burned..

Nearly one seven-millionth - 1/7,000,000 - of the coffee cups served=20
burn someone because they don't remember that hot coffee is hot. One=20
out of every seven million. You have a better chance of winning a=20
lottery than burning yourself at those odds.

Coffee is routinely brewed between 195 and 205F in restaurants. Any
lower temps and the complaints skyrocket about weak-tasting coffee.
Commercial coffee makers are designed to work at this temp range=20
because the results are what Americans expect and demand. Espresso is=20
hotter still because of the steaming.

Food held hot for sale in the US must, by law be hotter than 140F.
That's plenty hot enough to cause burns. Every hot buffet line has to
keep the food above that temperature to be legal. You risk burns every
time you hit the allyoucaneat bar. I bet more than 700 people get=20
burned every decade. But, since no international chains operate=20
buffets, the pockets aren't so deep.

Coffee makers for home use brew up at nearly the same temps as the
commercial ones. Any one that bubbles water up and into a coffee pot=20
has to boil the water before it will drip into the ground coffee.

A styrofoam cup is a fragile thing. Consumers demanded them over the
stronger (and more dimensionally stable paper cups) because they keep
coffee hotter longer. Note: they keep coffee hotter longer.

This whole case mixed apples and oranges. Who the hell puts hot food
between their legs? Do the demand of a well-flavored cup of coffee and
the desire to have a hazard-free environment contradict each other? Is
it not reasonable to take prudent precaution to avoid coming in=20
contact with hot, corrosive, sharp or otherwise potentially harmful=20
conditions? Would this woman have put a cup of coffee between her legs=20
at home? Would she have let a child do it? Does that maybe imply that=20
she might just have figured it out with a moment's reflection?

All the "admissions" from McDonald's were and are the real-life
standards that virtually all restaurants and, indeed, mom's home
kitchen, have to live with. The laws of physics. Of course hot food=20
and drink will burn you. Of course coffee fresh out of the machine is=20
too hot to drink., Of course no one knows about the degree of burning
possible from McD's coffee. Just like they don't know about anybody
else's coffee.

The expert testimony was interesting, too. According to them, if the
coffee had been at 155, it wouldn't have hurt her. Try this. Get your
hot tap water running for a while and stick your finger in it. It will
burn. Almost no one's kitchen sink water is over about 125F. Now take=20
a 12 or 16 ounce cup of it and pour it in your lap. Tell me how much=20
burn ointment it takes to get you to stop saying those bad words. Hey,=20
your home coffee maker according to their testimony is only running at=20
135 to 140. Pour a cup of that in your lap and tell me how it feels.=20
But the great reality is that I've never seen a coffee maker that=20
delivers 135=B0 - 140=B0 finished coffee. In 30 years of professional=20
foodservice, not once. In making coffee for my parents in their=20
restaurants in the 50's, not once. At home using everything from a=20
Chemex pot to a Mr. coffee, not once.

She had a 20% fault in the process. Puhleeze. Vulnerable defendant in
these times of zero-consumer-risk lawsuits and a nice old lady who
forgets that hot stuff burns. Puhleeze.

Where's that whole business of being responsible for one's own=20
actions. Stupid or otherwise.

> Their own consultants told them to turn down the temperature
> (from almost boiling) to 140F but they felt they would lose money if th=
ey
> reduced the temperature to a normal 140F which is about what your home
> coffee maker is set to.=20

Sorry. You've loaded your description with all sorts of emotional and=20
uninformed bullshit lifted directly from web sites that are utterly=20
unbalanced in presentation.

That "normal" you suggest is exactly *not* normal. I just went to the=20
kitchen and made a pot of coffee in my Proctor-Silex drip machine. It=20
registered 180=B0 on my Polder tip-probe thermometer and on two=20
quick-reads. I looked at a package of Folger's little individual cup=20
coffee packets and it asks for the brewing water to be "near boiling."

And you're choosing to ignore much too much about brewing coffee in=20
the world at large.

All those machines that let you fill the reservoir with water that=20
later is pumped up and over ground coffee work at near boiling=20
temperatures. They have to in order to get the water to flash over to=20
steam to make it go uphill to the drip head.

Percolators boil water to get it up to the top.

Stick a thermometer into a cup of coffee at your closest Starbucks and=20
tell me how hot it is.

> It was a calculated risk that had already resulted
> in hundreds of known burns. McDonalds also claimed that the reason the=
y
> served he coffee at such a high temperature was because people bought i=
t to
> drink when they got to a their destination - except that internal docum=
ents
> showed that they knew most people drank it in the car. Therefore, they=
knew
> that the coffee was dangerously hot, most people drank it in moving
> vehicles, and that the lid would have to be removed to put in cream and=

> sugar.

In another post to this subject, you said:

>If the coffee was served at a normal 140F temperature, she wouldn't=20
>have received 3rd degree burns.

You've rather blindly accepted that 140=B0F as fact. Nope. It's just not =
so.

>McDonalds knew that 750 other people had been burned. They also=20
were >advised to reduce the temperature of the coffee.

They were advised of many things, including the numbers of complaints=20
from people who would complain about weak-tasting coffee is=20
brewed/served at lower temperatures.

>They also knew that most people were drinking the coffee in their=20
>cars. They also knew that the lid would have to be removed to add=20
the >cream. Where does one put a cup of coffee when they have to=20
remove >the lid while in a car?

Since the 80's, virtually every car available in the US has had drink=20
holders. Stella was sitting in the passenger seat. Additionally, the=20
glovebox door is right in front of her to swing down and rest a hot=20
cup of coffee on; I mean the car wasn't moving at the time, they said.

>If you knew that you burned hundreds of people with your product,=20
yet >you decided to ignore warnings because you could squeeze out a=20
few >more dollars by jacking up the heat to near the boiling point,=20
then >don't you also share responsibility? I'm just turning the=20
situation >around.

You're talking emotional shit. McD's didn't "jack up the heat." They=20
use standard Bunn or comparable commercial coffee makers. They hit the=20
door pre-set to industry standards. Most don't let users adjust the=20
temperature settings beyond a small range because the machines=20
wouldn't work as well at lower temps.

>You say that the woman shouldn't have put the cup between her legs.

I note you haven't said you though it was reasonable for her to have=20
done so.

>I say that McDonalds shouldn't have served boiling hot coffee to
>people in cars, particularly when they knew the top had to be removed
>to add the cream.

McD's served coffee exactly the same as virtually *EVERY* other=20
restaurant, convenience store and ammo shop that sells coffee. The=20
machines come with temps designed into them.

>Had the woman immediately sued McDonalds, then I would think that=20
she >was an opportunist. (Although I can't imaging putting our=20
genitals >in near boiling coffee in hopes of collecting some money.)=20
In fact, >she only asked to be reimbursed for her costs. I would have=20
been the >smart thing for them to just have paid the hospital bills=20
and thrown >in a few dollars for pain and suffering.

It would have been the thing that would make it go away. But *SHE* put=20
the cup there. How does one get to be 79 years old and not know that=20
fresh-brewed coffee is hot enough to burn? Has she never before had a=20
cup of coffee? Did she never make it at home?

Pastorio