i bet it cost mcdonalds a ton of money, maybe millions when you consider the settlement plus the fees involved with the litigation. that money should have gone to the employees and stockholders of mcdonalds. thats less money for our grandmas who have mutual funds with mcdonalds stock. sucks for our precious grandmas. we should consider the safety of mcdonald's property and their rights not to have their money taken from them by force. i think mcdonalds deserves the same respect as a corner shop owned by a local mom+pop. i hate to see anyone use the courts to exploit others, big or small. people need to be responsible for their own actions, even accidents.
But if they had taken action before it became a large scale problem, they never would have incurred those fees. The point is their negligence. The only true costs were to replace the old cups & refigure their machines/microwaves or whatever. Legal fees only arose because they did not take action after being made aware of the problem. Money was taken rightfully, not quite the scenario you paint. I agree - judges, but juries especially, tend to go after big corporations too hard & the punishment is far greater than it would have been (even relatively) for a small owned business. However, this was taken care of in a later court when the amount was substantially reduced. Again, although it's inefficient, the court system generally works. Which is why the settlement was split & McDonald's only had to pay a percentage of the costs. The situation wasn't entirely their fault.
This thread should be deleted before some terrorist gets the idea of hijacking a firefighting helicopter and dumping a huge vat of McDonald's coffeee on a major population center.
Winner=Parso by a nose. You both make good points. Responsibility lies with both parties but the bulk of the responsibility goes to the seller of the coffee because they have exclusive control of the coffee temperature. Whatever temperature one boils coffee at, it is irresponsible to serve it at a temperature that permanently damages flesh. No one can drink it at that temperature and accidents (as well as carelessness) happen. The buyer assumes the risk of buying a drink that might burn him slightly, but not one that can cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
I give martin the nod. Coffee is hot. There's no denying that. People have to be accountable. Be careful with hot liquids or you will get burnt. If Mom had given the cup to a 2-year-old and the baby got scalded, who's at fault? Mom or Mickey D?
so we should tell customers that we cant give them coffee yet when it is fresh brewed because they are too stupid to handle it? are you people retarded? WATER BOILS AT 212 DEGREES FOR EVERYONE. coffee always is hot, at some point the water that makes cofee was 212 degrees. everyone should be smart enough to understand that. burning is a function of exposure as well as termperature. you can burn yourself at drinkable temperatures too, like marc showed, you can burn yourself with water at 150 if you want. i'm sure there is a temp at which you can sip off the top, but it would burn the living crap out of you if you collect a pool of it in your lap. is that too hot to be sold? accidents and carelessness are not mcdonald's fault. plus you must not buy much coffee, because coffee is almost exclusively sold at a temperature you cannot drink immediately. ok then at what temperature do you think big brother should restrict the sale of coffee? how many minutes should aellers wait for the coffee to cool before we stop protecting idiots from it? should i call the cops if they pour me a cup immediately out of the maker, which is obviously too hot to drink?
It takes a minute or two for coffee to cool down to 180 degrees, which is still plenty hot. Not exactly, go back to school. Coffee can be brewed at temperatures below boiling and in fact, much coffee is. It can also be brewed at temperatures above boiling. Water can be superheated, especially in microwaves. Coffee can even be brewed with superheated steam, like expresso. I quote from Wolfe: At the surface between air and water, or between steam and water, water boils at 100 °C. Water boils at 100 °C if there is already a bubble of steam (or air) present. But in the absence of bubbles, water can be heated above 100 °C. There are two reasons. First, to make a stable bubble, a lot of water molecules in the same small area must form steam. This is improbable. Second, it takes extra energy to form the bubble itself: energy to push the water out of the way, and energy to make the surface between water and steam. Once a bubble forms (a process called nucleation), it is easy to increase its size. So the superheated water nearby evaporates very quickly, producing a large volume of steam. Smooth containers do not have bubbles of air clinging to their sides. Rough walled or scratched containers may hold microscopic bubbles in their cracks. These become nucleii for boiling. Even a crack that is fully filled with water can be a boiling nucleus because it reduces the required area of the water-vapour surface. Stainless steel commercial coffemakers can produce superheated water if not properly operated. Accidents are not MacDonalds fault, but they will happen. McDonalds has the responsibility (a concept you often find difficult to understand) to make their product as accident-proof as possible. There is in fact a temperature beyond which, it is dangerous to serve coffee. The specific temperature can be argued, but clearly one that causes 3rd degree burns is irresponsible. Industry standards are not Big Brother. McDonalds was selling coffee at higher temperatures than restaurant industry safety standards and they put themselves at risk. If they had not done so they would have won the case.
What is the best temeprature to brew coffee? http://coffeefaq.com/site/node/26 According to the SCAA, the optimal water temperature for coffee is 92 - 96C (197.6 - 204.8F) for 90% of the contact time.
