patrick.net

Philistine says

That's like asking if you want your shit brownie hot out of the oven or let the turd cool on a marble slab for 10 minutes first.

Look, I'm 100% in agreement that McDonald's serves dogshit on a bun. But their coffee WAS good. It was much better than Burger Barf, Jack in the Crack, Dunkin' Sploogenuts, Taco Hell, or ANY of those places. It was actually pretty decent coffee. Sure you don't like it now, because they have to serve lukewarm diarrhea since they're afraid some old biddy will burn herself and sue them. Starbucks is pretty decent too. And from what I can determine on the internet, Starbucks serves their coffee at 175-180 degrees, which, according to you guys, is too hot. What I keep trying to tell you is, it has to be hot to taste good. You can drink your "safe" 150 degree Taco Bell coffee; I prefer something that doesn't taste like vomit.

Just explain how, if it makes absolutely no difference how hot the coffee is, why they would want to serve it hot. You really think they just wanted to injure people?

Homeboy says

I disagree. McDonalds' coffee tasted much better when they brewed it at the correct temperature. And to call someone a liar just because you can't tell the difference between a good cup of coffee and a bad one is incredibly obnoxious.

Their coffee is hot enough to burn your mouth now. But I didn't say I thought it was good (because I don't). I also didn't call you a liar. I said that saying their coffee is lukewarm is a lie.

Way too much emotion.

Actually, now that you've taken the trouble to make your argument, I see you have a legit point of view, and I'm more on the fence. In fact I always thought the settlement was probably way too high, without ever learning the details of the case.

Fact is I often agree with you, and you have some good points here.

But you're the one that's an obnoxious asshole, and you really should work on that.

Homeboy says

Then shut the fuck up and let the people who actually know the facts discuss it.

Also, my experience has been that brewing coffee at lower temperature actually makes it better.

Some of the best coffee I have ever had was made with this.

http://www.amazon.com/AeroPress-80R08-Coffee-Maker/dp/B000GXZ2GS/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

A major premise behind the AeroPress is that you get better coffee when you brew at a lower temperature.

Stand the chamber on a sturdy mug, then proceed to pour hot water into the top of the chamber (175 degrees F is optimal).

Using a regular french press correctly, also calls for not using boiling water, but rather water around 180 - 190 if possible.

Heat it a tad after in the microwave if you want it hotter.

A good cup of coffee requires four things to be executed correctly:
1- Proper brewing temperature
2- Proper serving temperature
3- Quality beans
4- Quality water

Any one of those items being 'off' can have a major impact on the experience.

Don, don't you think it's kinda long to make your point?

What was your point, anyway?

Did you have fun typing that?

B.A.C.A.H. says

Don, don't you think it's kinda long to make your point?

What was your point, anyway?

Did you have fun typing that?

I think its in there if you take the time to read it, but honestly I don't expect many to do that. That said, yeah, I did actually enjoy writing it - haven't thought about that stuff in a long time (I don't do litigation) but its fun to see how much of that I can remember.

I have something unhelpful to add to the discussion:

Am I the only one in the world who finds coffee, hot or iced, fit only for spitting into the toilet and never drinking again?

And what's with the obsession with drinking beverages so hot that, if you chugged them, it would line your esophagus with life-threatening burns?

leo707 says

Yes, you are ignoring how our legal process works. Believing that you are smarter than a judge and jury who had access to much more information that you did; you are refusing to try and understand why there would be such a large reward against McDonald's in this case. Here is your very emotional response to the fact that McDonald's knew they were burning people and chose to do nothing about it.

On the contrary, I am not ignoring the legal process, I am pointing out its inadequacies. Lawyers try to sway jurors by appealing to emotion. "Look how badly this woman was burned - here are some graphic pictures." O.K., that's really awful, but does it mean McDonald's did something wrong? I object to the premise that if someone got hurt, there HAS to be a rich person who is liable and able to pay a lot of money. The attorneys for McDonald's explained how they were ignoring context - how 700 complaints was a miniscule number compared to the billions of cups of coffee they served. They explained how ALL experts on coffee say it must be prepared at a high temperature or it will have an unpleasant flavor. These facts were lost on a jury who could only think: "Oh my god - look at those burns on that poor old woman".

Obviously you are not aware that the judge struck down the jury's award. That's right, the JUDGE thought it was incorrect. They actually ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, so we will never know how much money she actually got.

So which one of us is "emotional" and believes he is "smarter than a judge"? I guess that would be you.

Homeboy says

Obviously you are not aware that the judge struck down the jury's award. That's right, the JUDGE thought it was incorrect.

No, I am not aware that a judge "struck down" the initial award. I am however aware that in September 1994 Judge Scott reduced the initial award to $480K, and also commented on McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

Homeboy says

They actually ended up settling for an undisclosed amount, so we will never know how much money she actually got.

This is correct in November 1994 there was a settlement.

Between September and November of 1994, did some other judge "strike down" the award finding no fault on McDonald's part? This is interesting, I have not seen it in anything that I have read on the case. Please cite you source.

Homeboy says

Lawyers try to sway jurors by appealing to emotion. "Look how badly this woman was burned - here are some graphic pictures." O.K., that's really awful, but does it mean McDonald's did something wrong?

Does this happen? Sure, but not as often as you might think. Also, to win one needs to present facts as well. Just because there is an emotional component does not mean that the entire argument is incorrect. You are completely ignoring the other facts as to why Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

Hint: it was not just because there were some graphic pictures of a badly burned old woman.

Homeboy says

The attorneys for McDonald's explained how they were ignoring context - how 700 complaints was a miniscule number compared to the billions of cups of coffee they served.

Sure, just like a person who walks their dog through a city every day for decades walks the dog past 10s (100s) of thousands of people. If that dog bites 2 or 3 of those people in some contexts that would be statistically insignificant. If that dog ends up attacking and killing someone a judge and/or jury will find that the owner of the dog knew because of those past biting episodes that the dog was aggressive and dangerous. This is the way that McDonald's burning of 700 people was viewed by the court.

If it makes you feel any better, post 1994, people have tried to sue McDonald's (and other tea/coffee servers) because of burns, but as a result of this case McDonald's has lowered their serving temperature and uses better cups. All those other lawsuits have been thrown out.

Homeboy says

What is your belief? That McDonald's made the coffee too hot because they wanted to injure people? Does that make any sense?

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

leo707 says

Does this happen? Sure, but not as often as you might think.

Now you're just making things up. Appeal to emotion is a standard tactic for trial lawyers.

leo707 says

You are completely ignoring the other facts as to why Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

I am not ignoring anything. If anyone is ignoring things, it is YOU. You completely ignore the fact that the risk was statistically insignificant, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that McDonalds' risk was any greater than any other restaurant. Whenever people cite numbers without context, e.g. "700 complaints", you KNOW they are not making a rational analysis.

Homeboy says

What do you mean it isn't true that the judge struck down the award? You just said so yourself. Are you fucking high? The judge changing the award says EVERYTHING about the jury's decision. People here are saying the JUDGE made the original award. He did not. He actually REDUCED it. He thought it was wrong. If you can't understand that, you are a fucking idiot.

I am presenting FACTS here. YOU are the one pulling things out of his ass.

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

The judge who reduced the award made it clear that while he thought the award was too large, McDonald's was indeed at fault.

leo707 says

Judge Scott referred to McDonald's conduct as, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous."

leo707 says

No, McDonald's did not want to injure anyone. However, they knew that they were going to injure people, but they chose to do nothing to prevent the injuries that the knew were going to happen.

If you misuse a knife, you will injure yourself. Does a knife company have a duty to make their knives incapable of cutting human flesh? They "know" that it can happen. Does that automatically make them liable?

Homeboy says

I am not ignoring anything.

So, you are not ignoring the fact that Judge Scott called McDonald's conduct, "willful, wanton, reckless and what the court finds was callous?"

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference. I think the judge was swayed by emotion just as the jury was. But not to the same degree.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true. I can scarcely think of a product that WOULDN'T injure you under the right circumstances.

Homeboy says

I think the crux of the problem here is the assumption by several of you that if a company "knows" their product CAN injure a consumer, that they have a duty to discontinue making that product in its current form. This is not at all true.

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Reduced and struck down are two different things.

Semantics. He struck it down and replaced it with a lesser award. The parties ended up settling for an undisclosed amount. This is documented in many articles. I suggest you educate yourself.

No, in every court document is will never say "struck down and replaced" it will say "reduced." They are two different things.

Also, the compensatory award of $160k was never "struck down" or "reduced."

Homeboy says

leo707 says

It seems pretty clear to me that you are ignoring anything that would lead one to the conclusion that McDonald's was acting willful, wanton, reckless and callous.

Not ignoring - disagreeing. There is a difference.

YOU are the one who ignores facts.

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

It seems you admit that simply "knowing" there is a remote possibility that your product could cause an injury is not sufficient to establish liability. So now the ball is in your court. You need to provide further arguments.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

No, but if a company acts in a willful, wanton, reckless and callous manor that ends up in the injury of a person then the company should be held liable. This is true.

I agree. However, I disagree that McDonald's did so in this case. The only argument I have heard from any of you is that McDonald's "knew" their coffee could burn people. That is not a sufficient argument to establish negligence.

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently.

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this.

Homeboy says

leo707 says

Hmmm...when you imply that the Judge disagreed with the judgement against McDonald's it seems to me like you are ignoring the Judge's actual position on the matter.

Instead of repeated ad hominem, why don't you try making an actual argument? Too difficult?

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

marcus says

Their coffee is hot enough to burn your mouth now. But I didn't say I thought it was good (because I don't). I also didn't call you a liar. I said that saying their coffee is lukewarm is a lie.

To call me a liar because you disagree on the exact meaning of the vague term "lukewarm" is the height of assholishness. You should consider the ramifications before you accuse someone of lying.

marcus says

Way too much emotion.

I think this is something you say simply when you are on the other "side" of the argument from someone. I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case, i.e. "Big corporation bad; sweet old lady good".

marcus says

Fact is I often agree with you, and you have some good points here.

But you're the one that's an obnoxious asshole, and you really should work on that.

I'm not really here to make friends; there are other "club" type forums for that. I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that. I think you are hardly one to talk. I do agree with your point of view more often than not, but that is only because you are a diehard liberal who marches in lockstep with whatever you believe is a "liberal" point of view. I am also a liberal, but tend to have some issues where I think outside the established patterns of being in one "camp" or the other. You, on the other hand, are extremely predictable. Even when I agree with you, I tend to dislike your combative and often condescending style, and I notice that you frequently seem to be at odds with other forum members. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

leo707 says

Where is the ad hominem in my comment? Were you not implying that Judge Scott disagreed that McDonald's was at fault?

You keep repeating that I "ignore" facts, rather than making your own arguments. Repeatedly attacking me does not further your point of view. Is that hard for you to understand?

leo707 says

Judge Scott, and the jury certainly thought there was sufficient evidenced. While we were not privy to all the evidence given in court. From the trial summaries I have read I tend to agree that McDonald's is 80% at fault for the burns. However, had I been on the jury I may have thought differently

So your entire argument, in a nutshell is "She won the case, therefore McDonald's is wrong".

O.K., I thought we might be discussing whether we agree or disagree with the decision. I kind of thought that was the whole point here. Apparently, I overestimated everyone.

leo707 says

Homeboy says

If you want to make a further argument, please do so. You would be the first.

Nah, I doubt that even if I could replay the entire week of court argument for you that it would change your mind. We can agree to disagree on this

Ah, more ad hominem, but complete inability to contribute anything of substance. Yep, I definitely overestimated you. I'll take that as capitulation on your part.

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Everyone knows that if a court decision was made, it HAS to be correct (cough, cough) O.J. Simpson (cough, cough) Rodney King....

leo707 says

Homeboy says

I am not being emotional at all. I am being logical and analytical. I am the only one here eschewing emotion in my analysis of this case.

?

You should probably take a deep breath and self-reflect here.

Homeboy says

I am here to dispel ignorance, and there is a LOT of that.

You are in for a world of disappointment if this is your reason for being here, or anywhere on the intranet.

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts. How sad for you.

Homeboy says

Ah, more ad hominem

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

leo707 says

Hmmm...I am not quite sure that you understand what "ad hominem" is.

It's the only thing you are capable of.

Well I have to go because I have a life. Keep those insults coming, guys. I know you don't have anything else to contribute.

Homeboy says

Ooh, and the lee707 ad hominem fest continues. You must think I have an awfully thin skin if you think you're gonna get to me with those pathetic schoolyard taunts.

I am sorry that you are feeling attacked; perhaps you do have a thin skin. I made the comment about self-reflection because clearly you are not aware of how emotional your posts read.

We covered this in my Econ and Law class, I believed the MSM version. The Prof - who was quite the Rational market theorist/neoliberal type - gave us the real background.

If I remember right, McDonald's basically paid little above her legal & medical costs when all was said and done, although the initial judgement was higher.

I also remember that famous Wyoming Lawyer mentioning that Juries are actually harder on the poor than the rich, but even when they give a remotely reasonable judgement, it usually gets eviserated on appeal.

Homeboy--

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law
2. That the law is incorrect

From the hospital cafeteria where grandma stayed.

The hospital must be trying to drum up business with these gross negligence corporate greed cups.

tatupu70 says

Just out of curiosity--are you stating:

1. That the judge/jury misapplied the law

2. That the law is incorrect

If I'm not mistaken he's just having a temper tantrum because people are pointing out how wrong he is.

Facts:

1) Coffee tastes best if it is not brewed for too long or at too hot a temperature. The negates his reasoning that supposedly McDonald was trying to serve coffee at the extremely scalding hot temperature that makes it taste best.
2) The temperature that Mcds sells their coffee now is not lukewarm by anyones definition, and is at least as hot if not hotter than the temp that starbucks and all the other high end coffee houses sell their drip coffee. But McDs no longer uses styrafoam, that's flimsy or the type of lids they did before. The current cups probably cost more and also probably don't keep the coffee hot as long. But that's an adjustment they were pretty much forced to make.

These two facts alone negate much of what seems to have been causing Homeboy's tantrum.