Re: early lockdowns at VT

Jim Gysin wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:12:30 -0400, "Bill Hileman"
<discgolfdad@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jim Gysin wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Huck Kennedy
<tempehuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 29, 7:32 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Coffee is not intended to be served at a temperature high enough
to cause third degree burns, Bill.

Because Ralph says so!

And the court.

Do you even know what a third degree burn is, Jim?

I'm guessing that it's something that can be caused by spilling hot
coffee on yourself and then not doing much to get said hot coffee
away from your skin.

Stella was in her late seventies at the time. The very young and
the very old have a much smaller threshhold for burn tolerance in
their skin. Stell was wearing sweatpants, which managed to hold the
spilled coffee in contact with her skin longer than other materials
might have. When the water is as hot as it was, the contact time is
minimal. The contact time goes down exponentially as the
temperature goes up. Do you honestly think this woman did not try
to get the scalding sweat pants off as quickly as she possibly
could? "Not doing much to get said hot coffee away from your skin,"
are you kidding me?

According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, Stella "sat in the
puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds." This is also stated in the
page at:

http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/
or
http://snipurl.com/2sf1e

In looking through a handful of the other top Google results, I see
nothing else that confirms or denies the 90-second business.

I've got to give you credit for at least reading articles on the subject.
You'd be amazed at how many people even refuse to read anything about it at
all. That's the kicker, though, that nothing else seems to confirm or deny
it.

You never did answer his question, by the way. There's a vast
difference between a first and a third degree burn. One -would-
expect a first degree burn from the scalding of 180 degree water.
One would not expect a third degree burn, to the extent that skin
grafts would be needed.

90 seconds would seem to do it. Also from the Wikipedia article:

"[Stella] Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180
°F coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns
(where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds."

I can certainly believe that 12 to 15 seconds would do it, and if the coffee
was really at that temperature, can you believe that an elderly woman, whose
skin is overly sensitive to begin with, would be able to tolerate 90 seconds
of that? I would imagine that the damage itself is -done- in 12 to 15
seconds, and the heat by that time has dissapated to a level that is not
dangerous. Certainly after 90 seconds, it's not still 180 degrees? Just
the same, that's a strange factoid I've not come across in any of my
readings. To me, it doesn't change the basic facts of the case, though.

Also from the article, and along the lines of what some of the court's
detractors have been saying here:

"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was
unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of
coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger
King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have
been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.[14]"

So any attempts to claim that this was a McDonald's-only sort of
policy are ignorant, at best. (And please note that I'm not accusing
you of that.) Furthermore, the article continues with:

"Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable
temperatures.[15] The National Coffee Association instructs that
coffee be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 °C] for
optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed
immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees
Fahrenheit." [16]"

So McDonald's was following the advice of the experts. But I guess
lawyers know more about the "proper" way to serve coffee than the
National Coffee Association knows. Ralph knows better, too, of
course.

McDonald's ignored the advice of -their own- experts. I seem to recall
reading that in various articles on the case. Their own researchers warned
them of the dangers of keeping coffee at those temperatures, but in the end,
the bean counters figured they'd save money in the long run by being able to
"keep" coffee vs. paying off what they anticipated in lawsuits.

Could you
possibly say anything more stupid, Jim?

I dunno. Let me try. I also know that if I drive my car really,
really fast and run it into a brick wall, I might sustain an slight
skin abrasion, or worse. But I'm not gonna turn around and sue
Pontiac because I did something idiotic.

There. I said it. Does that qualify as "anything more stupid" in
your book, Ralph?

That's not stupid, Jim, but it's a bad analogy. Yours is not the
only one I've seen in this argument, however. For whatever reason,
most people who just don't seem to get the Liebeck case keep falling
back on things like that.

I don't agree that it's a bad analogy, as it demonstrates how bad
decisions can turn otherwise reasonably safe things into something
entirely unsafe. But for the sake of the discussion, let's make it a
bit more relevant by pointing out that water boils at 212F or
thereabouts, depending on atmospheric pressure, etc.

I'm gonna boil a kettle of water in a little while so that I can have
some instant decaf and/or hot tea over the course of the evening.
Once the water boils, I transfer it to a thermal carafe to keep the
water hot throughout the evening. Now, suppose the kettle whistles,
and I take the kettle over to the carafe for the transfer, and in the
process I spill hot water all over myself out of clumsiness. (Note
that I'm not even going so far as to say that I would be stupid
enough to place the kettle between my legs.)

Can I now sue the kettle maker for making a product that led to my
serious 212F burns?

Of course not, because one -would- expect to get injured, even severely, in
that scenario. Remember that the case did not find McDonald's 100% at
fault. I forget the percentage that Stella had to assume, but it was fair
and reasonable in my opinion. Was it stupid to hold a scalding hot cup of
coffee between your legs and attempt to remove the lid to add creamer? Sure
it was, but can you also really expect the consequences to be third degree
burns? Both were found at fault.

I have to give you more credit, Jim. I at one time was in the "The
McDonald's Case is a prime example of frivalous lawsuits!" camp, but many
years ago when this first came up (for me) someone in another newsgroup
posted dozens of links, and I read most, if not all of them, and was
completely turned around on the issue. Nearly everyone I've argued with
over the years on this case has offered lame arguements, refused to do any
research on it, etc. At least you're presenting decent arguements, and
doing -some- research. I hope you're not limiting your research to just
anti-lawyer bent sites, however. We all hate lawyers, but...


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: early lockdowns at VT
    ... Do you even know what a third degree burn is, ... coffee on yourself and then not doing much to get said hot coffee away ... old have a much smaller threshhold for burn tolerance in their skin. ... burn from the scalding of 180 degree water. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Starbucks Baristas Union Drive Comes at Key Time
    ... I hate to throw cold water on a good rant, but the "Hot Coffee versus ... Any punishment, (punitive damages), awarded against Jose would be ... McDonalds before that case. ... seconds to cause a third degree burn at 190 degrees. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: $8500.00 for hot mashed tatoes
    ... in contact with her skin" would still see a rapid and immediate drop in temperature, whereas in an actual immersion you've got this huge thermal mass to keep the temperature of the liquid in the contact area up. ... it would be impossible for the coffee in question to be above 212F, and extremely unlikely that it would even be that hot. ... 180+ degree coffee against her skin until the coffee cooled or until she stripped It makes perfect sense to me that she would suffer a tragic burn from someting like that -- I don't know if it woud be a realy bad 2nd degree burn or a 3rd degree burn. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: early lockdowns at VT
    ... Do you even know what a third degree burn is, Jim? ... coffee on yourself and then not doing much to get said hot coffee away ... old have a much smaller threshhold for burn tolerance in their skin. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: In Re Epson Ink Cartridge Class Action Cases
    ... who is responsible for the burn. ... She spilt coffee on her self. ... It is my opinion has this person only recieved first or second degree ... and this person got millions for a frivolous injury. ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)