# McDonald's coffee lawsuit revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2002, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503 "2002-07-30T08:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/281 "2002-08-06T14:38:53Z")
Middle of page 3, **blowero**. But hey, if you don’t believe **Fenris** ’ personal report, why don’t you get out a thermometer and try some 185-degree coffee yourself? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/282 "2002-08-06T14:59:46Z")
[At what temperature should you serve coffee?](http://www.confex.com/ift/99annual/abstracts/3583.htm) (empirical research results) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/283 "2002-08-06T16:42:08Z")
**minty** , I am laughing my ass off at that link. > [@](#): > > SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. !!! It takes a _study_ to demonstrate what mom always knew? Serving temperature is _always_ hotter than eating/drinking temperature. I think the analysis above was most accurate: one side sees the case as patently absurd, the other sees the case as a possibly obvious demonstration of negligence. I love McDonalds coffee. As I mentioned, I served it often, fresh, and drank it like mad (still do) myself. Like the coffee I brew at home (in boiling to near-boiling water), I do not expect to be able to drink it right away, much like I do not expect to eat food directly off the grill right away, nor food right out of the oven, and in most cases, pizza that arrives at my door (still piping hot). I’m stuck on the “absurd” side, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/284 "2002-08-06T17:54:31Z")
It was me. Don’t blame **bowero**. Sometimes I find, the deeper I dig into the legal terms themselves, that it still comes down to gut feelings as to what is right and wrong. What kind of society do we want to live in? What really is “reasonable”? In other words, in close cases the legal terminology does not answer the ultimate question of liablility. OTOH, **bowero** You are right about the risk / utility test being used **I think**. However, look at the last two parts of the test at the **bottom of my post at the top of page 5**. I think you will find your answer there. Here, we **may** have a situation where the legal test did not help McDonalds one bit. This is a very pro plaintiff standard when someone is really hurt. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/285 "2002-08-06T18:16:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > Middle of page 3, **blowero**. But hey, if you don’t believe **Fenris** ’ personal report, why don’t you get out a thermometer and try some 185-degree coffee yourself? Now I see - we have different browser settings - your page 3 is different from my page 3. > [@](#): > > Fenris: > Is independant research admissible in GD? > > Hhmmm…my fancy-shmancy top o’ the line coffee maker (which even grinds the beans) brews the coffee a tad under 190o (measured with my candy thermometer). However, after pouring it, adding milk, stirring it, etc, it dropped almost immediately to 165o-ish. > > And the hottest I could drink it (which is the best way…“slurping temperature”: too hot to drink without slurping) was a little under 150o (call it 145o). So…I conceed that the coffee was improperly served if it hit the cup at 185. Even without the milk, I’m guessing it shoulda been at about 170-175o. Minty, it has been explained ad infinitum in this thread that you don’t immediately chug down the 185 degree coffee. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a person drink coffee, but it is sipped slowly. Yes, if you swallowed a whole cup of 185-degree coffee, you would be burned, and everyone knows this. People add cream and sugar, and stir it, and generally do not take a big swig seconds after being handed the cup. Fenris’ “research” indicates that his coffee dropped more than 25 degrees after he added milk. Even if we accept his uncontrolled research as gospel, that would mean that the temperature at which McDonald’s supposedly should have served their coffee (160) would result in a cup of coffee under 135 degrees after adding milk, which would be colder than Fenris likes it. So no, Fenris’ “research” does not support your position. Oh, and that last link you posted (which I actually posted early on in the thread) really kills your argument. That study was for drinkers of black coffee, and said: > [@](#): > > The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F So, using Fenris’ research in conjunction with the AVERAGE drinking temperature from a controlled study (rather than Fenris’ own personal preference) we would have to conclude that those who put cream in their coffee would require it to be served at a whopping 193.1 degrees. In addition, I have posted and repeatedly referred to opinions from experts in the coffee industry, most of which advocate 185 degrees as the optimal serving temperature for good taste, and NONE of which advocated anything less than 175. Yet you just ignore all this and sarcastically repeat your disengenuous argument that you can’t drink 185-degree coffee. Your argument is tantamount to saying that frozen beef is just as good as fresh beef, because you can’t eat raw meat. > [@](#): > > Mandelstam: > blowero: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my reading of all the legal mumbo-jumbo that’s been posted here…” > > I know there are some substantive points in your post but I think it’s a bit unfair of you, at this point, to deride other posters’ comments as “legal mumbo-jumbo.” Oh, for cryin’ out loud! Can’t I say ONE thing that’s tongue-in-cheek without someone pouncing all over it. It was simply a little self-deprecating humor about how complicated the law is, meaning that it’s hard for me to understand such technical stuff. How did I “deride” anyone’s post? I restated what was my admittedly layman’s understanding of the legal points that were brought up, and tried to apply it to the situation. You have to read the whole paragraph, not just latch on to one word and then start flaming me.☹ At least **Beagle** understood my point. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/286 "2002-08-06T19:40:19Z")
Did **Fenris** use a styrofoam cup or a standard-issue ceramic mug? (I’d look myself but the boards are giving me a hassle). If it was the latter this makes perfect sense as the cup is room temperature as it is and would serve to lower temperature quickly. Another interesting thing I thought of: I don’t know how busy this particular McDonalds was, but we couldn’t brew coffee fast enough for our drive thru customers from 6:30 AM until well after 9AM. Coffee was constantly brewing, which means freshly-brewed coffee was being constantly served. In fact, most of our customers wanted it that way. Our evening coffee crowd would demand a fresh pot be brewed right on the spot (which we had no trouble complying with as a single small cup of coffee paid for the whole pot if you disregarded the cost of labor and cup). It is also worth noting, IMO, that I have never, ever been able to drink a cup of Starbucks coffee immediately upon receipt. They even have little things to put around the cups (even after double-cupping it) to prevent your hand from being burned _through the cup_. But of course, I must just be crazy to think that that is just how coffee is served and people like it like that, right? I mean, Starbucks, _a damn-near exclusive coffee company_ would have to serve their coffee at a temperature at which it could be drank right away, right? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/287 "2002-08-06T20:33:41Z")
**blowero** : _" Oh, for cryin’ out loud! Can’t I say ONE thing that’s tongue-in-cheek without someone pouncing all over it."_ Well, gee, **blowero** , if you can’t stand the heat–and I’m not talking coffee here–maybe you should post in a less vigorous forum ;). _Tongue in cheek?_ Excuse me if I didn’t realize you had suddenly morphed into Oscar Wilde. _Pouncing all over you?_ On the contrary, I thought that was one of my more kittenish remonstrances. 😃 All of that said, I’ve lost sight of your larger point with respect to this thread. A couple of posts ago your position was that the Tort Law Association was out of hand, representing the McD’s case as “open and shut”? Did I miss a cite for that? Now you’ve shifted gears and seem to be debating what the industry standard for coffee service should be. That is your perogative. Please note, however, that no one has said that it should be illegal to serve coffee at the high end of the range; only that insofar as that high end remains relatively unusual, a company such as McD’s, with a documented history of burns in its past, can and should expect to pick up medical bills as and when they occur–_or_ lower the temp. Those who are heartbroken by the change in flavor can ask McD’s to brew them a fresh cup, or purchase their caffeine fix from a higher-quality dealer. Life in a pluralistic democracy is full of compromises–this one is hardly cause for despair. **Beagle** : _“Sometimes I find, the deeper I dig into the legal terms themselves, that it still comes down to gut feelings as to what is right and wrong. What kind of society do we want to live in? What really is “reasonable”? In other words, in close cases the legal terminology does not answer the ultimate question of liablility.”_ These are questions I have thought about at length–and I agree. The law offers us only an approximation of what is “reasonable,” and a still vaguer approximation of “what is right and wrong.” On questions of justice we long for transcendental truths, whereas the law gives us compromises based on procedures. Sometimes it feels like a bummer… What, after all, does it mean to conclude, as the jury did, that the woman in question was 30% liable? As **Sam** ’s post indicates, a reasonable person could look at the same case and conclude, perhaps, that McDonald’s was only 47% liable, not 70%; and that the actions which you yourself called “moderately stupid” were “immoderately asinine” since McDonald’s was only trying to offer the world the best cheap cup of coffee it could make at a profit. Nevertheless, it strikes me that: - The procedure in this case has been examined point-by-point by people with relevant legal expertise. There is, as I see it, no viable case that the jury’s ruling was beyond the pale of the reasonable, or that the procedure itself was flawed in some way. (If anyone is still willing to make that case, I invite that person to step forward now–or forever hold his/her peace ;). ) - The debatable outcome seems to have been impacted by a number of unusual factors a) the unexpected severity of the burns due to unusual variables that combined in this particular accident; b) McDonald’s odd decision to fight the case rather than to settle; c) the ambiguity about what industry standards should be in a situation where severe harm only happens once in a blue moon and yet happens regularly enough to constitute a pattern of negligence. - What people disagree upon is, in essence, a matter of degree: was the woman more responsible than McDonald’s or less? Was McDonald’s very responsible or hardly at all? Let us remember that there is little or no disagreement that it would be absurd to pay punitive damages, or even medical bills, to a plaintiff who wilfully harmed herself; nor is there any disagreement that to be of any use, coffee needs to be served at a temperature that might in theory cause some harm so that consumers should, in all cases, exercise care. For these reasons it’s evident to me that what we have here is one of those murky situations: the cup, in this case, is either half empty or half full depending on one’s personal worldview, esp. with respect to issues such as individual responsibility, the state of the legal system, etc. It strikes me therefore that we have an opportunity here to look across the divide of our worldview and see things as others see it. That is a capacity that we always have and, presumably, it is because we believe in the meaningfulness of exercising that capacity that we speak to each other in this way when we could easily be watching TV. I find it sad, therefore, that people sometimes refuse to let go of their black-and-white distinctions, in the face of so much intelligent and genuinely informative argument (on both sides). OTOH, whatever the outcome of this thread, the thing that will always stick in _my_ mind is simply this: \*\*FENRIS OWNS A _CANDY THERMOMETER_??? \*\* ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/288 "2002-08-06T21:08:29Z")
Well, both sides have said made a lot of very good points and we are now reduced to pretty much repeating the same arguments. I see a lot of problems with **Mandelstam’s** vague summary, but I don’t really feel like starting over from square one, when my points would probably be misinterpreted anyway. Thanks to everyone for a stimulating debate. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2002, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/289 "2002-08-06T21:33:59Z")
**blowero** , “as has been explained ad infinitum in this thread,” the issue isn’t that most people wait for their coffee to cool down before they start chugging it. The question is whether it is negligent to serve coffee at 185 degrees knowing that coffee served at that temperature can and does cause serious burns to customers once or twice a week. Considering that [ul][_] Everybody but McDonalds pretty much served (not “brews”) their coffee at a lower temperature (170 or so, ISTR)[_]The lower temperature substantially decreases the occurrence of serious burns[_]185 degrees is too damn hot for most people to drink without burning their mouths [_]The large majority of customers _prefer_ their coffee served at the lower temperature (and indeed, the most likely reason for waiting to drink it is that they don’t want to drink molten lava)The admitted reason McDonalds served coffee so hot was because it disguised the taste of their swill[/ul]I think it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that McDonald’s was negligent in continuing to serve coffee at 185 degree, _i.e.,_ did not exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumsatnces. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/290 "2002-08-07T01:06:56Z")
**Minty Said:** > [@](#): > > Everybody but McDonalds pretty much served (not “brews”) their coffee at a lower temperature (170 or so, ISTR) No they don’t. Better re-read the thread. Let’s cover this again: A) McDonalds report which has been thrown back in their faces, DID show that three different fast food places served their coffee HOTTER than McDonalds B) The Coffee Industry recommendation for the serving temperature of Coffee is 92 degrees C, which is 187.6 degrees. C) Bunn Coffeemakers, which are found throughout the restaraunt industry, serve up coffee at 185 degrees. We know this because they were sued after their coffee gave someone 3rd degree burns. The courts threw out the case, saying that _185 degrees was the industry standard for serving coffee_, and also that _the fact that coffee can burn you is well understood by the average consumer_. In other words, the judge in that case (AND the appeals court) agreed with those of us who say McDonalds wasn’t necessarily at fault. > [@](#): > > 185 degrees is too damn hot for most people to drink without burning their mouths Yep. And I’ve burned my mouth on plenty of cups of coffee. In fact, I take it as a given that if I just pick up a cup of coffee offered to me and chug it, I’ll burn the crap out of my mouth. _Which is why no one drinks coffee that way._ > [@](#): > > The large majority of customers prefer their coffee served at the lower temperature (and indeed, the most likely reason for waiting to drink it is that they don’t want to drink molten lava) You just pulled this one out of your hat. Why would the coffee industry say that coffee should be brewed at 195-205 degrees and served at 185, if the majority of people didn’t like to drink it that way? You are confusing the SERVING temperature with the DRINKING temperature. If you serve coffee at the temperature that people like to drink it, then that means that any delay at all in handling, or the addition of milk or cream, will result in coffee that is cooler than people like. And this is a big deal. Lukewarm coffee sucks. > [@](#): > > The admitted reason McDonalds served coffee so hot was because it disguised the taste of their swill Is this just another way of saying, “Because it tastes better”, minus the gratuitous shot at McDonalds? Because if so, you’re right. They serve it hotter because it tastes better that way. This point contradicts your earlier one, in which you claimed that cooler coffee tastes better. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/291 "2002-08-07T01:19:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > A) McDonalds report which has been thrown back in their faces, DID show that three different fast food places served their coffee HOTTER than McDonalds And I said “pretty much,” not “everybody on the freakin’ planet.” > [@](#): > > B) The Coffee Industry recommendation for the serving temperature of Coffee is 92 degrees C, which is 187.6 degrees. Which recommendation “pretty much” everybody else ignored because it’s too damn hot. > [@](#): > > C) Bunn Coffeemakers, which are found throughout the restaraunt industry, serve up coffee at 185 degrees. We know this because they were sued after their coffee gave someone 3rd degree burns. The courts threw out the case, saying that _185 degrees was the industry standard for serving coffee_, and also that _the fact that coffee can burn you is well understood by the average consumer_. In other words, the judge in that case (AND the appeals court) agreed with those of us who say McDonalds wasn’t necessarily at fault. So what? You ought to know that legal standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You can legitimately bitch that the law of one jurisdiction is wrong and stupid, but you absolutely cannot complain that the jury’s verdict was wrong _under the applicable legal standard_. > [@](#): > > And I’ve burned my mouth on plenty of cups of coffee. In fact, I take it as a given that if I just pick up a cup of coffee offered to me and chug it, I’ll burn the crap out of my mouth. _Which is why no one drinks coffee that way._ Which is precisely why reasonable restauranteurs don’t serve it that way. > [@](#): > > Why would the coffee industry say that coffee should be brewed at 195-205 degrees and served at 185, if the majority of people didn’t like to drink it that way? Same reason McDonalds did: It keeps keeps their cut-rate swill servable for a slightly longer period of time. What, you don’t believe the McDonalds rep’s testimony? > [@](#): > > If you serve coffee at the temperature that people like to drink it, then that means that any delay at all in handling, or the addition of milk or cream, will result in coffee that is cooler than people like. And this is a big deal. Lukewarm coffee sucks. Third degree burns suck more. No question it’s a trade-off, but it’s an eminently reasonable one. I also dig the benefit of being able to drink my coffee now, as opposed to half an hour from now or watered down with ice cubes from the soda machine. > [@](#): > > They serve it hotter because it tastes better that way. This point contradicts your earlier one, in which you claimed that cooler coffee tastes better. I imagine that dog crap also tastes better when it’s burning hot. _Good_ coffee, on the other hand, tastes much better when it doesn’t scald your taste buds into complete numbness. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/292 "2002-08-07T01:44:59Z")
Minty, you’re like a little kid putting his hands over his ears going, “Lalalalalala”. First you say that no one likes drinking coffee at that temperature. Then you say McDonalds serves it that way because it tastes better. Then you say that Restaraunts don’t serve their coffee at 185 degrees, but you admit that Bunn Coffeemakers are set to serve at that temperature, and they are ubiquitous through the restaraunt industry. Then you go on about how McDonalds coffee temperature was an obvious reckless flaw, but when I post an actual site of a judge and an appeals court that didn’t agree, you wave it off as a legal technicality. You also say that the coffee industry has an incentive to suggest hotter-than-desired temperatures in order to conserve coffee. Totally ignoring the fact that the coffee industry has absolutely nothing to gain by having restaraunts use less of their product. You assume that the other fast-food places serve their coffee cooler for safety reasons, based on one terribly impressive study by a guy going around with a thermometer testing a sample of 20 different places, three of which served coffee at hotter temperatures than McDonalds. You ignored all kinds of evidence as to why they might serve coffee cooler than McDonalds other than for safety concerns. You claim that McDonalds coffee is an extreme hazard, while ignoring the fact that it has only resulted in complaints 700 times out of 10 billion servings, a safety rate that is almost unimaginable, despite the fact that it is served to people in moving vehicles. You have no answer for that discrepancy. Frankly, you aren’t arguing in good faith. Some of us have conceded points on both sides and tried to come to a mutual understanding. You just show up and kick the place around a bit, go ‘nyah nyah’, and leave. Thanks for the effort. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/293 "2002-08-07T01:53:58Z")
Another thing, **Sam** , is that larticle makes no mention of the conditions under which the coffee was served.( something Bunn would have no contol over). A jury might well find a particular temperature to be reasonable when served on a stable restaurant table , and unreasonable when served at the same temperature at a drive-thru, with a tight lid on the cup which needs to be removed to add milk and sugar. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/294 "2002-08-07T02:24:04Z")
But that’s not what the appeals court ruled. Their ruling was based on two conclusions: 1. That 185 degrees was the recommended temperature for the serving of coffee, as testified by experts at trial, and was therefore an accepted industry practice. 2. That the capability of coffee to burn you if spilled is a well understood risk by the consumer, even in the case of 3rd degree burns, and therefore there was no need for things like warning labels (one of the remedies the plaintiff was seeking). I saw no evidence of consideration of the circumstances around the serving of the coffee. Just the two conclusions above. Now, Minty said that this was a different jurisdiction, so different rules apply. But the reasoning above seems pretty standard. Perhaps there are slight differences in what constitutes reasonable expectations or assumptions of risk or whatever, but the ruling above seems pretty common-sensical to me. All of this leads me to the conclusion that McDonalds lost their case not because the legal system was screwed, or because their guilt and negligence was clear and obvious. Rather, they lost because their lawyers put on a piss-poor defense, and/or the plaintiffs lawyers were very good. A factor as well for the jury might have been the sympathetic nature of the plaintiff. I wonder if the jury would have found for the plaintiff if he had been, say, a 20 year-old black man. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/295 "2002-08-07T02:43:36Z")
Minty, you’re like a little kid putting his hands over his ears going, “Lalalalalala”. First you say that no one likes drinking coffee at that temperature. Then you say McDonalds serves it that way because it tastes better. Then you say that Restaraunts don’t serve their coffee at 185 degrees, but you admit that Bunn Coffeemakers are set to serve at that temperature, and they are ubiquitous through the restaraunt industry. Then you go on about how McDonalds coffee temperature was an obvious reckless flaw, but when I post an actual site of a judge and an appeals court that didn’t agree, you wave it off as a legal technicality. You also say that the coffee industry has an incentive to suggest hotter-than-desired temperatures in order to conserve coffee. Totally ignoring the fact that the coffee industry has absolutely nothing to gain by having restaraunts use less of their product. You assume that the other fast-food places serve their coffee cooler for safety reasons, based on one terribly impressive study by a guy going around with a thermometer testing a sample of 20 different places, three of which served coffee at hotter temperatures than McDonalds. You ignored all kinds of evidence as to why they might serve coffee cooler than McDonalds other than for safety concerns. You claim that McDonalds coffee is an extreme hazard, while ignoring the fact that it has only resulted in complaints 700 times out of 10 billion servings, a safety rate that is almost unimaginable, despite the fact that it is served to people in moving vehicles. You have no answer for that discrepancy. Frankly, you aren’t arguing in good faith. Some of us have conceded points on both sides and tried to come to a mutual understanding. You just show up and kick the place around a bit, go ‘nyah nyah’, and leave. Thanks for the effort. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/296 "2002-08-07T03:30:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **Did Fenris use a styrofoam cup or a standard-issue ceramic mug? (I’d look myself but the boards are giving me a hassle). If it was the latter this makes perfect sense as the cup is room temperature as it is and would serve to lower temperature quickly.** Fenris didn’t say. 😉 But I used an insulated plastic mug that holds about 4 cups (1 cup=8oz) of coffee, but I put in about 1/6 cup of milk or maybe a bit more. I also poured it from about 5 inches over the mug 'cause A) I read somewhere that aerating your coffee makes it taste better and I usually do so and B) I was trying to fake the spigot action of a McDonald’s urn. Hmmm…but I poured the milk into the mug first and the coffee into the milk. I wonder if that affected anything? Fenris ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/297 "2002-08-07T04:04:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > Minty, you’re like a little kid putting his hands over his ears going, “Lalalalalala”. Sadly, no. Instead, I’m attempting to engage you in a rational discussion without snide comments about other posters’ honesty. My mistake. > [@](#): > > First you say that no one likes drinking coffee at that temperature. Correct. > [@](#): > > Then you say McDonalds serves it that way because it tastes better. Correct. Flaming hot dog shit tastes better than room temperature dog shit because you can’t taste anything when your taste buds have been incinerated. Thanks for ignoring me completely when I made that exact point the last time you brought it up. > [@](#): > > Then you say that Restaraunts don’t serve their coffee at 185 degrees, but you admit that Bunn Coffeemakers are set to serve at that temperature, and they are ubiquitous through the restaraunt industry. Show me where I “admit” any such thing. > [@](#): > > Then you go on about how McDonalds coffee temperature was an obvious reckless flaw, but when I post an actual site of a judge and an appeals court that didn’t agree, you wave it off as a legal technicality. Legal technicality? Like bloody hell. Different laws in different jurisdictions is the complete opposite of a “legal technicality.” It’s not a technicality that laws vary from place to place. What you’re bitching about is that the jury supposedly couldn’t follow the law in their jurisdiction, which is utter nonsense. > [@](#): > > You also say that the coffee industry has an incentive to suggest hotter-than-desired temperatures in order to conserve coffee. Totally ignoring the fact that the coffee industry has absolutely nothing to gain by having restaraunts use less of their product. Sure they do. They sell more of their dog shit fast food coffee when the turd is rendered tasteless. Who are the sponsors of the supposed coffee association, anyway? And if consumers really want their joe served _flambe_, how come it was only McDonalds and the occasional Hardys that served their coffee straight out of the incinerator? > [@](#): > > You assume that the other fast-food places serve their coffee cooler for safety reasons, based on one terribly impressive study by a guy going around with a thermometer testing a sample of 20 different places, three of which served coffee at hotter temperatures than McDonalds. You ignored all kinds of evidence as to why they might serve coffee cooler than McDonalds other than for safety concerns. Oh, but there are all kinds of other reasons they might serve coffee cooler than fusion temperatures. Consumer preference is a darned good reason. Wanting their customers to actually taste coffee is another. The intelligence not to invite gigantic punitive damages is also an excellent reason. > [@](#): > > You claim that McDonalds coffee is an extreme hazard, while ignoring the fact that it has only resulted in complaints 700 times out of 10 billion servings, Nonsense. Where are you getting this “10 billion servings” figure? You think “Billions Served” refers to cups of coffee? In the U.S.? Since they’ve been serving it at 185 degrees? > [@](#): > > a safety rate that is almost unimaginable, Work on your imagination muscles, Sam. I have no problem imagining 700 burns serious enough to cause formal customer complaints. Like I said, if I’m their attorney and they send me 700 consumer complaints, I’m going to tell the dummies to do something about it, rather than let a jury do something for them. > [@](#): > > despite the fact that it is served to people in moving vehicles. You have no answer for that discrepancy. What discrepancy? 700 complaints about a specific condiction is serious stuff whether you’re Microsoft or Bob’s Computer Repair Co. Heck, 700 complaints is class action territory, and that’s a _really_ serious threat of damages. And is anybody but erislover going to complain if they drop the temp to 170? Didn’t think so. > [@](#): > > Frankly, you aren’t arguing in good faith. Frankly, I invite you to perform anatomically impossible feats on unlikely animal species of inderterminate gender for casting aspersions on the honesty of my postion. How unbelievably petty of you. > [@](#): > > Some of us have conceded points on both sides and tried to come to a mutual understanding. You just show up and kick the place around a bit, go ‘nyah nyah’, and leave. Leave? Would somebody explain what I’m still doing here then? > [@](#): > > Thanks for the effort. And yours. ---
**Author:** ![James\_Madison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@James\_Madison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James_Madison)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2002, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/298 "2002-08-07T05:39:26Z")
1. That 185 degrees was the recommended temperature for the serving of coffee, as testified by experts at trial, and was therefore an accepted industry practice. 2. That the capability of coffee to burn you if spilled is a well understood risk by the consumer, even in the case of 3rd degree burns, and therefore there was no need for things like warning labels (one of the remedies the plaintiff was seeking). Number one is not what I am readily going to dispute. I am going to explain why number two does not sufficiently demosntrate McDonald’s was not at fault. Number two does not exactly exonerate McDonald’s of fault simply because there is a dispute as to the belief of a particular fact. The fact of whether or not it is well understood by consumers, which do not brew coffee at the recommended industry standard or never have done so before, that coffee brewed, served, and purchased from a commercial establishment at or around 190 degrees can cause third degree burns within three seconds of exposure to skin. The jury in the McDonald’s case and the plaintiff’s lawyers evidently concluded it is not common knowledge of a consumer, their plaintiff as well, who has no prior experience in dealing with coffee or a substance at or around 190 degrees, may result in third degree burns within three seconds of exposure to skin. The Plaintiff in the McDonald’s case made it unequivocally clear she acknowledged coffee can result in burns or even blisters but was not aware McDonald’s coffee could cause third degree burns if exposed to the skin for three seconds. The plaintiff in the McDonalds case acknowledged she was not aware that: 1. McDonald’s brewed their coffee at or around 190 degress and 2. Coffee at or around this high of a temperature can result in third degree burns within three seconds. These two considerations defeat an Assumption of the Risk defense. The plaintiff was not aware of the “specific risk of harm” posed by the defendant which this specific harm was “third degree burns within three seconds of exposure to skin” and as a result plaintiff did not “knowingly” and “voluntarily” choose to encounter this specific risk of harm. Ergo, plaintiff did not assume the specific risk of harm by defendant because she was never made aware of nor had knowledge of this specific harm. Hence, Assumption of the Risk defense fails for these reasons. Now if the plaintiff had experience in dealing with coffee or other liquids at or around 190 degrees then this is a much stronger argument for assumption of the risk defense. But the fact she didn’t seriously weakens such a defense. Now walking through the elements of a negligence claim and scrutinizing number one in the relevant elements. 1. That 185 degrees was the recommended temperature for the serving of coffee, as testified by experts at trial, and was therefore an accepted industry practice. 1. Duty- standard is reasonably prudent. I am not exactly sure how the Court was using number one but I am inclined at this moment they cited this fact in an attempt to establish no duty was breached by the defendant in the case before them. Acknowleding this may not have been the sole consideration, and most likely was not, number one does not help the defendant. There are cases in tort law, and if push comes to shove I can find them on Westlaw, which state affirmatively “custom” does not at all establish the duty nor does it decide whether or not such a duty was breached. For example lets assume an accepted industry practice among electrical companies is to leave manhole covers off of the hole at the work site and not to post any warnings of any kind indicating to pedestrians or civilians a hole in the ground was present. A pedestrian, walking to work and paying close attention to oncoming traffic rather than the ground looking for gaping holes, falls into the hole injuring himself. Most likely the electrical company and workers which left the manhole cover off of the hole and posted no warnings is going to be found negligent and to have breached their Duty despite the fact it is a common industry practice. In fact, we discussed the McDonald’s case and analyzed this point as it was brought up in the McDonald’s case. The first and immediate objection was, of course, common practice or “custom” does not define the contours of one’s duty. So this is where and why number one fails in relation to the consideration of Duty and most likely the Court of Appeals was using it within the scope of Duty. Now while 700 settlements out of billions of coffee served may seem insignificant to some this of course can be a very misleading number. First of all it does not tell us the true number of people burned and injured by McDonald’s coffee. It is quite possible some were injured by McDonald’s coffee and never pursued any legal action. This catergory of people are excluded and unknown. Second it does not tell us the number of suits brought against McDonald’s in which they won on a motion of Summary Judgment, in which case it never went to trial, or received a jury verdict in their favor. Now what the 700 settled cases did consequently result in was alerting McDonalds to the fact their coffee, when brewed at or around 190 degrees and exposed to the skin at or around this temerature resulted in serious injuries. They were around, at least 700 times prior to the incident of the plaintiff which sued them an won, their coffee was injuring people. Despite being aware of the monotony of this fact regarding their coffee, they took no precautions and hence de minimis was an example of something they did not wisely pursue. Now I won’t dispute the plaintiff was perhaps at fault for her injuries. However, what is in dispute is the whether or not it is common knowledge of a consumer, especially one with no prior experience in dealing with liquids at or around 190 degrees nor being aware of the consequences which may result if the skin were to be exposed to such a liquid at these high tempratures as this was the case of the plaintiff. In my opinion this lack of knoweldge on behalf of the plaintiff permits her to win her case and defeat some legal defenses. ---
**Author:** ![CheapBastid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@CheapBastid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CheapBastid)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/299 "2002-08-08T19:49:22Z")
Thanks for your input, and it mostly sums up my position on the argument, but… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by James Madison \* > \*\*Now what the 700 settled cases did \*\* The 700 refers to **claims** against McDonalds. Not cases, complaints, or incidents, but claims. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503/300 "2003-02-11T00:49:54Z")
Now that we’ve succeeded in forcing McDonalds to serve tepid coffee, it’s time someone made them serve soft, doughy bagels: [Couple Sues McDonald’s Over Tough Bagel](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23103-2003Feb4.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*They contend in the suit that John O’Hare broke teeth and bridgework on Feb. 1, 2002 when he bit into the bagel. The suit did not say what exactly was wrong with the bagel. > > The suit alleges the wife “lost the care, comfort, consortium and society of her husband.”\*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-revisited/121503.md?page=16)