undefined | Better HN

0 pointscoolsunglasses11y ago0 comments

I read an overview of the facts of the case a few years back, so I'm recalling from a possibly faulty memory.

This coffee was being over-brewed at higher-than-normal temperatures because the McDonalds franchise was being greedy and attempting to extract more coffee out of the grounds.

This exact same franchise had gotten past customer complaints about the dangerously hot coffee burning people.

I and my father have spilled decent amounts of normal temperature coffee on our laps in the car, it barely caused any burns at all, let alone third degree.

The coffee was excessively hot and the franchise was negligent.

0 comments

Karunamon11y ago

Likewise with the memory thing, but I think they were brewing it at the National Coffee Association recommended temperature.

Anyways, I don't think the 'greedy' angle has any merit to it. One pack (mcdonalds coffee comes in these premeasured packets) is good for exactly one urn of coffee, and you (and the customer..) will instantly know if you reused it because the result is terrifically light and unpleasant to drink (but this implies McDonalds coffee is pleasant to drink in the first place...)

As far as customer complaints go, McDonalds themselves had hundreds of complaints about hot coffee and burns for many years before this case ever saw the light of day. Those hundreds are a statistical rounding error when you consider how many cups of coffee the restaurant does in a single day that don't result in any problems, let alone years.

aaronem11y ago

Well, you know, you can get away with poor trigger discipline for years on end without hurting anyone, and then one particularly careless day you negligently discharge your firearm into someone's head. In what way does the former make up for the latter?

Karunamon11y ago

The fact that 700ish burns in a few years compared against 10ish million cups of coffee a day is a statistical anomaly that doesn't require the intervention of the legal system?

I still disagree with the ruling in that case. They still brew the coffee at the same temperature but now with lawyer safe "Caution: Hot stuff is hot!" markings on the cups. As if anyone with functioning brain cells wasn't aware of this.

Yes, 700 people manage to burn themselves in a few years and meanwhile 3.5 billion in a single year don't have any problem and the problem is obviously with the company selling the coffee instead of the 700 people who mis-handled a cup of scalding hot liquid. Give me a damn break.

1 more reply

mertd11y ago

Coffee is brewed at ~200F. Water boils at 212F. There is not much room there. Most likely, their containers were too hot, not the brewers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscoolsunglasses11y ago0 comments

I read an overview of the facts of the case a few years back, so I'm recalling from a possibly faulty memory.

This coffee was being over-brewed at higher-than-normal temperatures because the McDonalds franchise was being greedy and attempting to extract more coffee out of the grounds.

This exact same franchise had gotten past customer complaints about the dangerously hot coffee burning people.

I and my father have spilled decent amounts of normal temperature coffee on our laps in the car, it barely caused any burns at all, let alone third degree.

The coffee was excessively hot and the franchise was negligent.

0 comments

Karunamon11y ago

Likewise with the memory thing, but I think they were brewing it at the National Coffee Association recommended temperature.

aaronem11y ago

Karunamon11y ago

The fact that 700ish burns in a few years compared against 10ish million cups of coffee a day is a statistical anomaly that doesn't require the intervention of the legal system?

1 more reply

mertd11y ago

Coffee is brewed at ~200F. Water boils at 212F. There is not much room there. Most likely, their containers were too hot, not the brewers.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse