"Hot Coffee"

a reply to: DupontDeux

You are trying to simplify something that isn't simple. Hot doesn't equal third degree burns. If you worked with a material that can instantly cause 3rd degree burns, safety equipment and training would prevent you from harming yourself and you would handle the substance accordingly.

No one buys coffee knowing that it can cause 3rd degree burns.

3rd-degree burn
The most serious burns involve all layers of the skin and cause permanent tissue damage. Fat, muscle and even bone may be affected. Areas may be charred black or appear dry and white. Difficulty inhaling and exhaling, carbon monoxide poisoning, or other toxic effects may occur if smoke inhalation accompanies the burn. "

mayoclinic

Why would anyone buy a substance with that kind of risk?

Why would a restaurant sell a product with that kind of risk?

She was hospitalized for 8 days and had to have skin grafts done.

That is not the only thing. Before this incident, McDonalds had 700 other claims for coffee burns against them.

Don't forget that at the time, the materials they used were flimsy. They have had to since then beef up the cups in order to keep them from spilling so easily.

But you just keep parroting what the big corporation told you.

a reply to: g146541

I know what I speak of in this arena, I drink more coffee in a day than you can all week.

challenge accepted
really i go through a lot of coffee freshly ground
i go through at least two coffee machines a year

i love coffee
oh the smell of freshly ground coffee
if only you had smellynet vision

a reply to: Qumulys
OMG
thats really bad all that damage from a hot cup of coffee

thats some burns uch:

a reply to: DupontDeux

As a business owner who serves the public, I would question the logic of handing a cup with a flimsy lid and full of 200 degree liquid to a customer through a drive through window.

As a busness owner who offers a few different levels of coffee service, I can honestly state that the "perfect" temperature for holding/serving coffee is between 155-175 degrees. At that range, 3rd degree burns are highly unlikely.

To summarize: the superior quality product is at a temperature that will not cook you. So why would McDonald's choose to serve coffee that poses a public health risk? Easy: reduce free refills.

The operative word in "profit margin" is "margin". Reducing consumption of free items creates cash that flows right into the bottom line as a marginal improvement.

originally posted by: maryhinge
a reply to: g146541

I know what I speak of in this arena, I drink more coffee in a day than you can all week.

challenge accepted
really i go through a lot of coffee freshly ground
i go through at least two coffee machines a year

i love coffee
oh the smell of freshly ground coffee
if only you had smellynet vision

In my office i have a 2 year old Keurig. I prepare an average of 6-7 cups a day through it (i like Sumatra roast or French roast).

At home I have a Keurig, too....but prefer my french press.

Anyway....i recommend a keurig. Better quality brew and a much, much longer lasting brewer.

Again, this post is not about coffee!

The video is worth watching in its entirety.

I bet you change your mind.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not to derail the thread here, but I actually gave away my keurig. Thought it made coffee taste like crap, removed caffeine (had to drink more) and the coffee k cups were expensive.

Heating the water on an element like that gave it more of a microwave taste. Not the same as hot, boiling water.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

My major problem with so-called "frivolous" lawsuits bumper sticker sentimentality is the cry wolf phenomenon. Truly legitimate lawsuits are dismissed by the court of public opinion after being manipulated by the MSM.

After seeing the injuries she sustained $2M seems low.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: alienjuggalo

My major problem with so-called "frivolous" lawsuits bumper sticker sentimentality is the cry wolf phenomenon. Truly legitimate lawsuits are dismissed by the court of public opinion after being manipulated by the MSM.

After seeing the injuries she sustained $2M seems low.

She didn't even get 2 million.


The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials

I remember how i thought and felt about it at the time, and no mocku, documentary is going to change that.

it was/is utterly ridiculous, the litigious nature of society today.

personally, i'd rather see more bleach in the gene pool than i would ANY More cautionary labels being required on products of any nature.

if someone is dumb, ignorant or stupid enough to put their hand , foot or anything else under the deck of a running lawnmower..... so be it..... suffer the consequences and learn from your moment of complete stupidity, else. :derp: :derp:

you put a scalding hot cup of coffee between your legs, and then want to complain when the lid pops off, which caustically caffienates the kitty .... so be it.

you'll likely never do it again, hopefully.

McDs should have never been held or found liable for her stupidity. plain and simple.

's nuckin futz anymore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

case in point.

my wife was rear ended years ago by a guy who was paying more attention to 'yielding traffic'than he was to the vehicle in frot of him. she went to merge but hesitated for an oncoming car. he didn't see/notice it and proceeded to hit her pretty hard in the ass end.

she had our youngest daughter in the car along with the dog. fortunately the guy didn't have a leg to stand on as a passing state trooper saw tyhe whole thing. pulled over and proceeded to ream him a new one.

she was driving an older buick station wagon so the 'damage' was rather minimal with the exception of hindering proper function of the rear 'tailgate'.

his insurance paid the estimate, no questions asked, knowing we weren't intending to have the work done. got over twice from the estimate than we paid for the car in the first place.

but.... they kept hounding us for near two years to sign off on it.... i just threw them in the round file.

hell.... we could have gone to all sorts of levels of depravity [in my opinion, it is] even to the extent of the friggin dog having been traumatized by it all and will no longer ride/get in the car.

but. NO.

she wasn't hurt. No One Was!!

sp why should 'we' join the ranks of idiots suing over the slightest of things.

Sure we could have easily claimed all sorts of things and have gotten $30K or more out of it [had we sued -there's no defense on a rear ender].

but..... we also have to look at ourselves every morning, and that's just not us.

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

This lady was found to be 20% responsible, per the litigation. She did not sue for personal gain - she sued for culpability.

I BET you change your mind after you've seen the video [throws a gauntlet]!

a reply to: jrflipjr

applied common sense would greatly reduce, if not outright eliminate, the need for this type shyte.

if a given product id deemed or found to be faulty/hazardous, then recall it.

but.... there's simply no reason to hold companies at fault for what people do with their products. !!

originally posted by: jrflipjr
a reply to: 12m8keall2c

- she sued for culpability.

should have just accepted her own and been done with it.

how the hell is mcdonalds or their employees culpable for her idiocy????

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

Believe me, I agree with you on the point of personal responsibility and frivolous lawsuits. BUT, the video uses her case as a starting point for MUCH larger issues. Her case is actually one of the weaker cases in the larger picture. The final point to consider is how much of your civil rights are being eroded. Watch the video. Then come back and tell me what you think...

a reply to: jrflipjr

oh. i'm not about to argue that it's all been and continues to be manipulated for agenda-laden initiatives/purposes.

just that. i'd rather see a healthy does of bleach into the gene pool.

if stupid is as stupid does, then stupid gets what stupid gets.

exactly why we see escalating insurance costs, malpractice insurance costs, etc.

if someone actually does you physical harm out of sheer intent or negligence.... so be it.... take them to the bank/cleaners,.

but what people do with company's products just isn't the same imho.

???

I'm not trying to argue - I'm trying to ask that you look at the video. The arguments you are making are completely valid and on point! I don't disagree with the effects of Darwinism, stupidity and personal entitlements exhibited these days. This video is not arguing those things.

I will leave it at this. I challenge you to watch the video or forever remain in ignorance. You hold the glass of bleach...drink or don't drink?

a reply to: jrflipjr

i've been watching it since the first post. hence my replies.

it's all orchestrated to benefit those with the monies to 'make it happen' to better their own bottom [or lessen the potential damage to their] own bottom lines.

$$$$ rules.

common sense and personal responsibility both go out the door.

welcome to our disposable society .... where it's even gotten to the point that human life isn't any more highly-regarded than that of a fookin inanimate object

just $$$

a reply to: 12m8keall2c

Fair enough!

And yes, the "low information" voters of today could use a little cleansing. But - and a big but - if I am ever a victim of corporate negligence, I intend to claim my stake - not because it's my entitlement, but because I will not settle for arbitration at the mercy of corporate greed.

a reply to: jrflipjr

agreed.

i really have no issue with anyone who has been harmed by the direct, willful or otherwise, negligence, fault, intent, etc whatsoever.

caps off, imho.

it's just the absolutely nonsensical crap like.

frivilous lawsuits

while they're not the best of examples, they're indicative of the nature of society in this day and age.

utter BS


.... and a huge factor in the creation of a nanny state nation, imho.


Joe down the street went to check if his lawnmower blade was turning, and ended up losing three fingers. he's suing the manufacturer for not having a warning label in spanish.

hence why they now, virtually, all have labels in french [for canada], english and espanole.

at a cost of millions to the manufacturer ..... and increased costs at the stores selling them.

we do this to ourselves without even thinking about or realizing it.

stupid is as stupid does.

and

we tend to bring upon ourselves that same that we would otherwise detest and profess against.

people == stupid.

i want off now. stop the ride.

LOL

a reply to: 12m8keall2c