In article >, "Kyle Phillips"
> wrote:

> "Vox Humana" > ha scritto


> > > 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!


> > Yes, but it is obvious that you aren't familiar with the details of the
> case
> > as you assume that the car was moving when the coffee was spilled.


> You're right, it's been a while and I remembered the car as moving. But even
> in a still car I wouldn't put something dangerously hot (and you can tell,
> if you have any experience with coffee, how hot it is from the temperature
> of the outside of the container, no matter what it's made of) between my
> thighs.


And you are still persisting with making up facts to fit what you want to
believe. In the site below, it clearly states that she put the coffee
between her knees, not her thighs.


http://pages.prodigy.net/gaglenn/law...fee/truth.html

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

Dan Abel wrote:

>
> > To blame MCD's in this case is like racing into the street without looking
> > and blaming the person who runs us over for driving too fast. He may have
> > been, but it's our fault that we ran out into the middle of the street.
>
> I take it that you aren't a lawyer, and don't play one on tv. I'm not a
> lawyer either, but I expect that someone who is speeding and runs into a
> pedestrian will get nailed for it.

He didn't say that the car was speeding. He said that the person who raced out
into the street without looking would blame the car for going to fast. There is
a world of difference between the two, and the analogy is a good one. The
injured party was due to their own carelessness but is looking for someone else
to blame.


> The problem with much of the discussion in this part of the thread is that
> people want to assign 100% responsibility to one party. It doesn't work
> that way. Obviously it wasn't the fault of McDonalds that the woman
> spilled the coffee. The damages awarded were reduced accordingly.

IMO it was not MacDonalds fault at all. They sold the woman a cup of hot coffee.
Coffee is a hot beverage. How were they to know that she thought she had
prehensile thighs?

Vox Humana wrote:


> Not to prolong the discussion, but I will simply restate my point.
> If you know that 700 people have been burned by your product and you have
> not looking into the safety of your operation; you know that you are
> dispensing coffee in a flimsy cup to people in cars; and you know that the
> lid has to be removed to add the cream; and you choose to do nothing, then I
> think you are at fault. You have made a calculated decision to operate in
> such a way to maximum profits knowing that a certain number of people will
> sustain serious burns.

As Pastorio pointed out, the number of people burned was 1 in 7 million. I have
heard nothing to indicate that any of them were serious burns. One in 7 million
people getting burned consuming a hot beverage is actually a pretty good record.
However, I would suggest that there were probably more people who got burned but
never thought of reporting it or trying to extort money out of the company
because they realized that it was their own carelessness. It's not like there
was a slew of defective cups that were disintegrating.

I would dispute that their cups are flimsy. They are disposable cups, so you
can't expect them to take a beating, but they do stand up, literally and
figuratively.


> You can't have it both ways. The net cost of your
> decision has to include the increased revenues and also the cost associated
> with the injuries resulting from your decision. While no one can completely
> eliminate danger, I think there is a moral obligation to reduce risks when
> possible.

They have reduced risk. They use a cup that is adequate, and they provide a top
that seals the drink quite effectively. It will stay in place until you use your
hands to remove it. That seemed to have been the stumbling block in this case,
as the victim chose to use her thighs to hold the cup instead of her hands. She
wa a passenger in the car, so if she was having trouble there was someone who
she could have asked for help.


> Assuming the woman should know better based on her life
> experiences is no different than my expectation that McDonalds should have
> known better from their actual experience. I think both parties are at
> fault. The woman for spilling the coffee, and McDonalds for dispensing
> coffee at such an elevated temperature that it caused sever burns.

Did you read what Pastorio wrote. He has extensive experience in the industry
and with coffee making equipment. AS he indicated quite eloquently, it was not
served at an elevated temperature. Rather, it was served very close to the
industry standard.

> Never
> the less, had the coffee spilled on the woman at a table inside the
> restaurant, she would have been burned. The majority of the responsibility
> is McDonald's.

I don't know about that. I confess to having spilled a cup of coffee on myself
in a coffee shop. I got wet. It was warm, but after sloshing across the table it
cooled off. I am happy to say that I have never spilled a cup of coffee into my
own crotch as a result of holding it between my legs.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
>
>
> > Not to prolong the discussion, but I will simply restate my point.
> > If you know that 700 people have been burned by your product and you
have
> > not looking into the safety of your operation; you know that you are
> > dispensing coffee in a flimsy cup to people in cars; and you know that
the
> > lid has to be removed to add the cream; and you choose to do nothing,
then I
> > think you are at fault. You have made a calculated decision to operate
in
> > such a way to maximum profits knowing that a certain number of people
will
> > sustain serious burns.
>
> As Pastorio pointed out, the number of people burned was 1 in 7 million. I
have
> heard nothing to indicate that any of them were serious burns. One in 7
million
> people getting burned consuming a hot beverage is actually a pretty good
record.
> However, I would suggest that there were probably more people who got
burned but
> never thought of reporting it or trying to extort money out of the company
> because they realized that it was their own carelessness. It's not like
there
> was a slew of defective cups that were disintegrating.
>
> I would dispute that their cups are flimsy. They are disposable cups, so
you
> can't expect them to take a beating, but they do stand up, literally and
> figuratively.
>
>
> > You can't have it both ways. The net cost of your
> > decision has to include the increased revenues and also the cost
associated
> > with the injuries resulting from your decision. While no one can
completely
> > eliminate danger, I think there is a moral obligation to reduce risks
when
> > possible.
>
> They have reduced risk. They use a cup that is adequate, and they provide
a top
> that seals the drink quite effectively. It will stay in place until you
use your
> hands to remove it. That seemed to have been the stumbling block in this
case,
> as the victim chose to use her thighs to hold the cup instead of her
hands. She
> wa a passenger in the car, so if she was having trouble there was someone
who
> she could have asked for help.
>
>
> > Assuming the woman should know better based on her life
> > experiences is no different than my expectation that McDonalds should
have
> > known better from their actual experience. I think both parties are at
> > fault. The woman for spilling the coffee, and McDonalds for dispensing
> > coffee at such an elevated temperature that it caused sever burns.
>
> Did you read what Pastorio wrote. He has extensive experience in the
industry
> and with coffee making equipment. AS he indicated quite eloquently, it was
not
> served at an elevated temperature. Rather, it was served very close to the
> industry standard.
>
> > Never
> > the less, had the coffee spilled on the woman at a table inside the
> > restaurant, she would have been burned. The majority of the
responsibility
> > is McDonald's.
>
> I don't know about that. I confess to having spilled a cup of coffee on
myself
> in a coffee shop. I got wet. It was warm, but after sloshing across the
table it
> cooled off. I am happy to say that I have never spilled a cup of coffee
into my
> own crotch as a result of holding it between my legs.


Like I said, this is something that we won't agree upon.

Dave Smith > wrote:

> Vox Humana wrote:
>
> > The issue as I understand it is that Mc Donald's made misleading claims
> > about their food, and the advertising that delivered the claims was
> > targeted to teenagers. They will have to prove this. They have already
> > convinced a court that the case has enough merit to proceed. I don't
> > see a big issue here. It's not like the food industry has never
> > adulterated food or engaged in false advertising or deceptive practices.
> > When does an industry achieve a position where they can't be sued and
> > who decides? Is the general public responsible for ignoring false
> > advertising? Should children know that eating at McDonalds is bad for
> > you? 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.
>
> I would suggest that the issue is the amount of McDonalds food you would
> have to eat to get fat. Nobody gains a few pounds from eating a Big Mac
> and and order of fries. They got fat because they ate too much of the
> stuff. One of the complainants was reported to be 5'6" and 270 lb. That
> is one hell of a lot of burgers and fries. The complaint is that McDonalds
> failed to provide free, easily understood nutritional information about
> its fast food.
>
> In order to make their case, the complainants should be required to
> provide the court with documentation of the food they have been eating for
> the past few years. For all we know, they could have been stuffing
> themselves with soda pop and chocolate bars, and may never have been in
> the golden arches.

Unfortunately, you don't understand the US civil law system which IS THE
MOST RIDICULOUS ON THE PLANET.

Nobody put a gun to these clowns heads and made them eat Big Macs.

A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115Ëš F

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith > wrote:

> A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
> died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
> we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115? F
>

Citation, please.

Vox Humana wrote:
> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>>A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
>>died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
>>we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115? F
>>
>
>
> Citation, please.
>



http://www.wlf.org/upload/11-05-03ambros.pdf

Bob

Vox Humana > wrote:

Have you ever heard of Google? Here's what I typed in "illegal
immigrants sue for water"

First hit.

http://www.totalobscurity.com/mind/n...ter-desert.htm

Not that it will suceed but the fact that they even filed it is heinous.


> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
> > died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
> > we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115? F
> >
>
> Citation, please.

"zxcvbob" > wrote in message
...
> Vox Humana wrote:
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Dave Smith > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A worse case, in Arizona the families of Mexican illegal immigrants who
> >>died of thirst illegally crossing the desert into America sued because
> >>we didn't put water stations in the desert for them when it was 115? F
> >>
> >
> >
> > Citation, please.
> >
>
>
>
> http://www.wlf.org/upload/11-05-03ambros.pdf

Thanks.

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream.
> The
> drive parked the car so she could add the cream.

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


This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups printed
with the proper wording:
CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.

How else would people know what to do?

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
>
>>Actually, she was a passenger in a car. She ordered coffee with cream.
>>The
>>drive parked the car so she could add the cream.
>
>
> Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs
> to remove the top to add other ingredients.
>
>
> This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups printed
> with the proper wording:
> CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
>
> How else would people know what to do?
>
>
>


It should also have said, "CAUTION: HOT COFFEE MAY BE HOT"

HTH, ;-)
Bob

zxcvbob wrote:

>
> >
> > Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs
> > to remove the top to add other ingredients.
> >
> >
> > This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups printed
> > with the proper wording:
> > CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
> >
> > How else would people know what to do?
> >
> >
> >
>
> It should also have said, "CAUTION: HOT COFFEE MAY BE HOT"

Sadly, it seems that there are some people who are so incredibly stupid that they
need that type of safety warning. Even sadder, it seems that there are also
enough people stupid enough to think that value to protect people from their own
carelessness is a corporate responsibility.

In article > ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

> This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups printed
> with the proper wording:
> CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.

Part of the testimony given by safety experts, including McDonald's own,
was that McDonald's held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees
Fahrenheit (claiming it maintained taste) whereas other companies held
it at much lower temperatures (by around 20 degrees). They'd also
received over 700 complaints about burns, including third degree burns
like this woman's.

For other details, see
<http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMedia...room/FACTS/fri
volous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx>

The 20 degree-difference detail is from other documents I have... I
don't recall an online cite, though I suppose Googling could find it.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

(Curly Sue) wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>
I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
its fast food.".
That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
whatever that agreement was.

OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
the desk - MIke

Michael Horowitz > wrote:

(Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>>
>I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
>don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
>however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
>that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
>with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
>its fast food.".
>That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
>that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
>whatever that agreement was.
>
>OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
>the desk - MIke

Please ignore post. I see others have stated the same thing. - Mike

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:19:42 -0500, Michael Horowitz
> scribbled some thoughts:


(Curly Sue) wrote:
>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3jfyv
>>http://tinyurl.com/63jtc
>>
>I'm going to play devil's advocate. WARNING: I am not a lawyer, I
>don't even play one on TV and I don't have all the information....
>however, based on the second URL, one of the elements of the suit is
>that " McDonald's failed - as it had agreed - to provide customers
>with free, written, easily understood nutritional information about
>its fast food.".
>That's what the suit is.. not that eating there made them fat, but
>that McD had agreed to something and they were not following-up on
>whatever that agreement was.
>
>OK, I've got my flameproof long-johns on , and I'm retiring to under
>the desk - MIke


Then again, you've got Corporate owned McD's and Franchise
owned McD's Depending on the ownership of the unit, the
franchise owner and/or manager may be at fault. Such do
have some leeway with regards to a bit of the operation as
long as it doesn't differ too strongly from established SOP.

--

Sincerely, | NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font
| (©) (©)
Andrew H. Carter | ------ooo--(_)--ooo------
d(-_-)b | /// \\\

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
>
> Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her
> legs to remove the top to add other ingredients.
>
> This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups
> printed with the proper wording: CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP
> BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
>
> How else would people know what to do?

Oh, right. How silly of me not to have considered that. You're right,
of course.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

Scott wrote:

> In article > ,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>>This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups printed
>>with the proper wording:
>>CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
>
> Part of the testimony given by safety experts, including McDonald's own,
> was that McDonald's held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees
> Fahrenheit (claiming it maintained taste) whereas other companies held
> it at much lower temperatures (by around 20 degrees).

Let me state this gently. This is bullshit. Industry standards are in
absolute agreement with McD's actions. There wasn't anything shady
going on, it's how restaurants have made coffee since they started
making coffee. It's how coffee is still being made pretty much everywhere.

I'd like a good citation for your assertion here. I flat out don't
believe it.

> They'd also
> received over 700 complaints about burns, including third degree burns
> like this woman's.

700 - or to put it into a perspective, one out of every 7 MILLION cups
of coffee burned someone.

> For other details, see
> <http://www.atlanet.org/ConsumerMedia...room/FACTS/fri
> volous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx>

This is the American Trial Lawyers Association web site. Right.
Unbiased observers.

They have things like this on the web site:

"McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit
to maintain optimum taste."

*Every* restaurant holds coffee at those temperatures.


" * Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower
temperatures than at McDonald's.
* Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees."

Both of these last two are simply untrue.

Coffee makers come pre-set to optimum brewing and holding
temperatures. Most can't be adjusted. And they don't say how many
other establishments or where they are or who they are. In three
decades of professional food service, not one coffee supplier has ever
suggested brewing or serving coffee cooler, not one coffee maker
manufacturer has suggested brewing it or serving it cooler. Not one
trade mag has endorsed the idea of reducing the temperatures in any
part of the process.

Doing empirical tests yesterday, I and other subscribers here made
pots of coffee at home with normal coffee makers and the temperatures
were 40 or 50 degrees higher than the claimed temps cited above.

> The 20 degree-difference detail is from other documents I have... I
> don't recall an online cite, though I suppose Googling could find it.

There is no such thing. No one holds coffee 20 degrees colder than
McD's. Oh, sure, there may be a mama-papa in Duluth that does, but
they certainly don't represent anything like a significant number. And
their coffee tastes like shit.

Name one. Name one operation larger than a stand-alone diner that does it.

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" wrote:

> > They'd also
> > received over 700 complaints about burns, including third degree burns
> > like this woman's.
>
> 700 - or to put it into a perspective, one out of every 7 MILLION cups
> of coffee burned someone.
>

I will admit that I have made myself hot drinks that were above the 180-190 F
that MacDonalds uses for their coffee. I have nuked old coffee until it was
boiling. I tried to sip it, but realized it was much to hot to drink, so I et it
cool down. I always, always, always used my hands. I have been known to set a hot
cup of take out coffee on my knee. Never in my life have I stuck a hot cup of
coffee in my crotch, between my thighs, between my legs, between my knees or
whatever technical anatomical label you want to apply to that area of my body.

>

Bob (this one) wrote:
> There is no such thing. No one holds coffee 20 degrees colder than
> McD's. Oh, sure, there may be a mama-papa in Duluth that does, but they
> certainly don't represent anything like a significant number. And their
> coffee tastes like shit.
>

It's true. I've been to Duluth, and the coffee was terrible. HTH :-)

Bob

In article >,
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:


> Let me state this gently. This is bullshit. Industry standards are in
> absolute agreement with McD's actions. There wasn't anything shady
> going on, it's how restaurants have made coffee since they started
> making coffee. It's how coffee is still being made pretty much everywhere.
>
> I'd like a good citation for your assertion here. I flat out don't
> believe it.

<http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm>
from The Wall Street Journal
"When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit
last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it
hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for
comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all
over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20
degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about
180 degrees."

> > They'd also
> > received over 700 complaints about burns, including third degree burns
> > like this woman's.
>
> 700 - or to put it into a perspective, one out of every 7 MILLION cups
> of coffee burned someone.

Clarification:
<http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/2004-10-21/cover.asp>
"Liebeck, who had no wish to go to court, reluctantly turned the matter
over to lawyers, who arranged to test McDonald's coffee throughout
Albuquerque and found it was hotter by 20 degrees than any other
restaurant's (temperature policies were imposed on local stores by the
McDonald's corporation). They also learned that McDonald's had ignored
warnings from burn centers for years and had been sued for coffee
injuries and settled 700 times for amounts up to a half-million dollars.
(A retired judge who tried to mediate the Liebeck case recommended that
the company settle for $225,000, but McDonald's refused.)"

It seems that there were 700 lawsuits and settlements, not 700 notices.


Most of the rest of your responses are also addressed by these citations.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

Dave Smith > wrote:

> zxcvbob wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Let's stop here for a second. She had the coffee cup between her legs
> > > to remove the top to add other ingredients.
> > >
> > >
> > > This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups
> > > printed with the proper wording: CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN
> > > YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
> > >
> > > How else would people know what to do?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It should also have said, "CAUTION: HOT COFFEE MAY BE HOT"
>
> Sadly, it seems that there are some people who are so incredibly stupid
> that they need that type of safety warning. Even sadder, it seems that
> there are also enough people stupid enough to think that value to protect
> people from their own carelessness is a corporate responsibility.


I agree with you.

Did yoiu read this? I think it's a HOOT!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2005...912104-cp.html

zxcvbob wrote:
>
> It's true. I've been to Duluth, and the coffee was terrible.

Hmm, it's not possible to receive coffee burns in Duluth, it's a
scientific fact... nothing in Duluth has ever been hotter than -20=BA
F=2E.. why Duluth doesn't even have a burn center, only a center for
frost bite and freezer burn.

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
>
>> This would have been prevented if McDonalds would have had the cups
>> printed
>> with the proper wording:
>> CAUTION DO NOT PUT THE CUP BETWEEN YOUR LEGS OR IN YOUR CROTCH.
>
> Part of the testimony given by safety experts, including McDonald's own,
> was that McDonald's held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees
> Fahrenheit (claiming it maintained taste) whereas other companies held
> it at much lower temperatures (by around 20 degrees).


So what? Should the warning the read: "LET THE COFFEE COOL 20 DEGREES
BEFORE PUTTING IT BETWEEN YOUR LEGS: Putting a cup of coffee, at any
temperature, between your legs is a dumb idea no matter what the
circumstances.

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>
>>Let me state this gently. This is bullshit. Industry standards are in
>>absolute agreement with McD's actions. There wasn't anything shady
>>going on, it's how restaurants have made coffee since they started
>>making coffee. It's how coffee is still being made pretty much everywhere.
>>
>>I'd like a good citation for your assertion here. I flat out don't
>>believe it.
>
>
> <http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm>
> from The Wall Street Journal
> "When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit
> last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it
> hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for
> comparison.
>
> After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all
> over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20
> degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about
> 180 degrees."

I note that you haven't refuted: " Industry standards are in absolute
agreement with McD's actions." In fact, your citations bear that out.

And I wonder several things about that intrepid law student and his
noble efforts, and the boneheads who sent him off on his essay:

1) did he compare apples and apples? Were the "steaming cups and mugs"
the same sort of container as the McD's? The answer from the words
above is "NO." Pouring hot coffee into a ceramic mug will drop the
temperature in the mug by a good 20 degrees. The coffee comes out of
the pot at the same temperature, but the mug is a heat sink. Instead
of "steaming cups and mugs," he should have been measuring the
temperature in other take-out containers. Is that what he did...?

2) What kind of thermometer did he use? Unless he used one with a tip
probe, it won't be accurate if the "steaming cups and mugs" were of
different depths because of the way thermometers take the temperatures
of what they're stuck into.
<http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Bimet-pic.html>
"The companies that make these thermometers provide no guarantee of
accuracy at 150F or higher, because the coil, after perhaps as little
as a week of use, can corrode in the stem, causing it to malfunction."

3) Did he record these temperatures within the time frame that would
have been the case with Stella? No way to know. But if he didn't take
the temp of take out containers, it doesn't matter.

The lawyers who sponsored this "research" were just as inept as the
ones who defended McD's in Stella's case.

>>>They'd also
>>>received over 700 complaints about burns, including third degree burns
>>>like this woman's.

See, here you say "complaints." Later on you transform it to lawsuits
based on the Reno newspaper story.

The Wall Street Journal story says:
"Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had
received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to
third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries
for more than $500,000."

They say "reports.

>>700 - or to put it into a perspective, one out of every 7 MILLION cups
>>of coffee burned someone.
>
> Clarification:
> <http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/2004-10-21/cover.asp>
> "Liebeck, who had no wish to go to court, reluctantly turned the matter
> over to lawyers, who arranged to test McDonald's coffee throughout
> Albuquerque and found it was hotter by 20 degrees than any other
> restaurant's (temperature policies were imposed on local stores by the
> McDonald's corporation).

See above about the temperature readings. The reality is that the
lawyers for Stella managed to back McD's into a corner where their
normal functioning that was essentially the same as everybody else's
appeared to be callous and deliberately malicious. It's more a case of
lawyerly skill than dealing with the truths in coffee making.

From the first citation above:
"McDonald's [...] requires that its coffee be prepared at very high
temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and
industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully
extract the flavor during brewing."

And:

"A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's
coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for
Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer
complaints are any indication, industry settings may be too low - some
customers like it hotter. A spokeswoman for Starbucks Coffee Co. adds,
'Coffee is traditionally a hot beverage and is served hot and I would
hope that this is an isolated incident.'"

> They also learned that McDonald's had ignored
> warnings from burn centers for years

It also says they didn't talk with burn experts.

This isn't supported by any data I've seen anywhere. It's third-party
reporting, after the fact, to make a point.

Try this for unbiased tone:
"The jury, which was initially disgruntled to be put on such a trivial
case, ended up outraged at the testimony by McDonald's officials. One
of them, McDonald's quality manager, Christopher Appleton, said he
knew perfectly well that the coffee was injuring people, that
McDonald's didn't bother consulting burn experts, that the company
decided not to warn people about the searing coffee, and that he had
every intention of continuing to sell it."

"...perfectly well ... didn't bother... decided not to warn... every
intention." So it wasn't really the temperature of the coffee, it was
the perceived attitude of the McD's people. Their coffee was
essentially identical to everybody else's by industry standards, but
the jury based it on something else. Fine job of jurying and fine job
of reporting.

It goes on:
"It became apparent to jurors that McDonald's considered the frequent
injuries and out-of-court settlements part of the cost of doing
business--a small price to pay for being known for the hottest coffee
in town."

"Frequent injuries" to the tune of one in 14 million (revised number
based on Stella's coffee costing 49 cents rather than a dollar). And
"...known for the hottest coffee in town..." By whom?

What pure shit. Stick a reliable thermometer into the coffee pot
(that's where the issue really lives, not in some "steaming cup or
mug") in any 7-11 and see what the temperature is. But the temperature
doesn't appear to have much to actually do with it. This reporter was
just as outraged as the jurors. Lousy reporting.

> and had been sued for coffee
> injuries and settled 700 times for amounts up to a half-million dollars.
> (A retired judge who tried to mediate the Liebeck case recommended that
> the company settle for $225,000, but McDonald's refused.)"
>
> It seems that there were 700 lawsuits and settlements, not 700 notices.

The big, magic word here is "seems." You're a bit too willing to
uncritically accept what's written as the absolute truth. No place
else reports that the 700 cases were all lawsuits and all settlements.
Each story cited in this thread makes McD's brewing and serving coffee
within industry standards more and more like a callous conspiracy to
deliberately burn people.

> Most of the rest of your responses are also addressed by these citations.

A very fine capsule of this case comes directly (out of context) from
that newspaper article from Reno. It says, "Matters of debate are
regularly described as matters of fact." No case better exemplifies
that than this one.

Pastorio