undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdaniel-cussen7y ago0 comments

> Certainly wasn't meritorious

Could you read a little more about that case?

1) McDonald's had burned hundreds of people by that point, as the plaintiff's lawyer said in "Hot Coffee", "they were on notice." They served it that hot IIRC because it would stay hot slightly longer, even though lowering the serving temperature a tiny amount reduced burning disproportionately and would have prevented that and hundreds of other accidents.

2) The server didn't actually attach the lid to the cup.

3) She had horrible burns, 3rd degree.

4) McDonald's received an offer to pay for her ~$10,000 medical expenses, and counter-offered $600.

5) This was an old lady who had never sued anyone in her life.

6) She ultimately gave up on life in her old age because of the shaming.

"Hot Coffee" opened my eyes about the whole matter. I suggest you watch it.

0 comments

bootlooped7y ago

I think one of the reasons they served it so hot was that they brewed it very hot. The reason they brewed it very hot was because the hotter you brew it the more flavor you can extract. The more flavor you can extract from the beans, the more liquid coffee you can produce from the same amount of coffee grounds.

They made it dangerously hot because it was marginally more profitable.

At trial they claimed they served it that hot because people wanted it to be hot when they arrived at their destination, but their own research showed that people consumed their food, including coffee, during their commute.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse