Edited by bulk001 - 4/12/13 at 8:12pm
- Joined: Nov 2008
- Posts: 282
- Select All Posts By This User
Edited by bulk001 - 4/12/13 at 8:12pm
Why don't I have a "That's not the argument" Apple Executive Reaction Image… Maybe he'd understand that.
I know little about the truer side of the story but I assumed that a black coffee would, at the point of production, be 100ºc until milk etc was added, ie hot enough to cause harm. I also assume that I should not touch the metal griddle that my sizzling platter turns up on.
Do you, or anyone else have a link to a text based version of the story?
I've met people stupid enough to both put a cup of hot coffee between their legs and to pour hot coffee between their legs. It's not impossible.
So, what is the "lega" definition of "too hot"? Is that based on how stupid one is when handling something the is generally known as "hot" and how well a lawyer can argue the point? When I grew up, if something said "hot", you were careful regardless of how hot it was. That was and still is a stupid case that should have been thrown out. And it still serves as an example of how not may people take responsibility for their own actions. They'd rather blame someone or something else for stupid things they do. This is seen every day on TV and on the web.
I don't drink coffee, but when I make instant for she-who-must-be-obeyed, I add the granules to water poured straight from the kettle.
Water at 60°c (140°f) can result in 3rd degree burns in 3 seconds. I would be rather annoyed if someone sold me a hot beverage as low as 60°c
At no point did I suggest that the lady made anything up but the fact remains that at the generally recommended serving range of 70°C to 80°C she would still have been injured.
You might note there is a minor difference expressed in the opinions of coffee brewing temperatures.
You stated, earlier, that "the temperature was deliberately turned up past what is reasonable and safe specifically to keep the coffee from needing to be replaced as often. This was negligent behaviour."
The sources that I have read suggest that company policy was to provide drinks at a marginally higher temperature (180 to 190) not as a money saving exercise but to ensure that drinks would be warm on arriving at one's destination.
If the law dictates that drinks should not be served over a given temperature then I would agree that they were at fault. As it stands there is no upper limit and many stores such as Starbucks sell coffee that is even hotter.
I guess that the law does not legislate upper temperatures because it assumes that the public are intelligent enough to know that hot liquids will burn and considers that they will take adequate steps to prevent contact with skin.
To be honest the tort law site that made the claim does not specify if the coffee sold by starbucks is drip coffee or not.
The lady's lawyers argued that coffee should not be served at temperatures in excess of 160°f, citing that at such temperatures it would take 20 seconds to scald rather than 12-15 at 180°f.
Other courts have reject these claims.
Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., UK 2002
"If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled."
In the Liebeck case the jury accused McDonalds of being partly negligent in not providing sufficiently large warnings on the cup, the temperature was not the issue.
By and large the case seems to have been sexed up by the press over the years to the point where accounts are no longer factually true, much like the case of the female astronaut who did not wear a nappy to avoid toilet stops.