Political Theory

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

xahrx — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:09:15 GMT

How does any of that change or impact any of what I said? I suppose if we polled McDonald's customers, we'd find they're more likely to be coffee experts familiar with the case law and chemistry, or are they more likely to be average people on their way to work who want a drinkable cup of coffee? I'm not saying she has a legal case because her rights have been violated, or that McDonad's executives/employees should go to prison, or even pay if they don't want to. However, I can see how a perfectly reasonable human being would think the drink was a bit hotter than necessary seeing as how it removed her flesh upon spilling. The knife analogy is off too. Knives are made to cut, there's an inherent and understood specific danger there. And while there is a danger of burn with hot coffee, that's a bit understated compared to what actually happened to her. "Warning: Contents Hot" doesn't quite encompass the severity of what happened to her when she spilled it. I don't know a single reasonable human being who upon seeing her burns doesn't at least think twice as to just how fucking hot McDonald's really needs to make their coffee.

Look, if a woman is raped, is it her fault? No. No one deserves to be raped. However, if she was walking nude through central park at 3 AM, does she deserve it then? No. No one deserves to be raped and she has every right to walk naked in the park. However, that doesn't mean you wouldn't take her aside and gently suggest that doing so is not a great idea. We're not talking about her natural rights or the right of McDonald's to sell fucking lava if they want to. Something happened to her which seems to most people to be way out of proportion to what should be possible as an acceptable risk in those circumstances. In that case, as a matter of civil, not criminal law, and be it through government or private courts, I don't see it as unreasonable for people to expect, not compel, McDonald's to pony up a little something to cover the pound of flesh the spilled coffee seared off her fucking legs.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

cab21 — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:00:18 GMT

the company should not have to do anything, i think it would have been a nice thing to pay the medical bills, but that would just be being nice, perhaps set up a community fund to help the woman out.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

FlyingAxe — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:46:52 GMT

The customers probably wait for coffee to cool down.

In fact, because there is a history of people scalding themselves on McDonalds coffee, this makes the lady's case weaker.

Imagine some knife company was sued because someone chopped off his finger using one the company's razor-sharp knives. Should the company pay the damages? I think the answer is whether there was a reasonable expectation that the knives would be razor-sharp.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Malachi — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:30:05 GMT

I did and I found a lot more diversity of opinion than you apparently did. So I guess we just got burned by google's user-targeted search results. Although I do agree that "the worst" is 155-175 with preference towards the higher end.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

myhumangetsme — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:18:38 GMT

Malachi:
No one drinks coffee at 180 degrees.

Google 'best temperature to drink coffee' and get back to me. The worst you're going to find is 155-175 degrees with preference towards the higher end of that range. And as I've already stated, the temperature served is not the same as the temperature drank anyway due to how quickly the coffee can lose heat just through the act of moving the liquid in the cup.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Malachi — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:13:04 GMT

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

140+/-15 is what they say, and I still want to see someone drink (not sip) coffee at 150. Thats how you serve coffee outdoors during the winter.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

myhumangetsme — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:10:39 GMT

Jeremiah Dyke:
I would think it's sensical for someone in a drive through to assume their food is immediately ready to consume...

Since 2006 McDonald's sells approximately half a billion cups of coffee each year. Even if the sales numbers would be lower in the 90s I would bet they are not significantly lower. So are the remaining consumers for that half a billion cups of coffee from McDonald's just masochists?

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Malachi — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 01:05:40 GMT

@myhumangetsme

No one drinks coffee at 180 degrees. The quote you posted says coffee shold be mantained at that temperature if its not going to be served immediately. I have used a thermometer on my beverages in the past, I doubt anyone drinks hot beverages at more than about 125. In fact I would like to see you drink something at 150 hahaha

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Jeremiah Dyke — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:35 GMT

I guess it really depends how you view aggression and intent within the chain of causality. I personally think claim is legitimate but the fine outrageous. I would think it's sensical for someone in a drive through to assume their food is immediately ready to consume just as it would be sensical for a restaurant to assume someones car has cup holders.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

myhumangetsme — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:32:55 GMT

xahrx:
If that coffee did that to her thighs, what do you think it would have done to her throat had she taken a nice gulp?

England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions - Bogle & Ors v McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd.

If this submission be right, McDonald's should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.

United States Court of Appeals, 7th Cir. - McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp.

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

Greg — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:16:22 GMT

When I was age three my mom sat down a cup of coffee and as soon as she did I jumped up and grabbed it burning my stomach pretty bad and had to go to the hospital. No scars but she was questioned by child protective services, luckily my mom knew the lady questioning and they knew she wasn't abusive or negligent (had pretty great parents all-in-all!) Just crazy for me to think because of this one mishap these people could have taken me from them! Accidents happen, it's impossible to be perfectly safe but maybe this is why I still hate coffee lol.

As for the McDonalds case, I didn't realize the burn was so serious but I still can't see how this could come to legal discourse. Ronald McDonald didn't put that coffee between her legs sheesh. Though I will say it didn't look like she was just doing this to make a buck like I have heard many say. I wonder if the number of self-inflicted coffee spills went up after hearing about the settlement.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

xahrx — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:52:03 GMT

"I don't understand the question of relevance of natural rights. If there was no case of aggression, then why should someone pay up?"

Because fraud is considered aggression, and when you sell something to drink that's really more suitable for stripping varnish off a foot locker, that can be seen as a violation of the contract that you're buying something to drink that you expect to, you know, drink. Without causing major injury. If that coffee did that to her thighs, what do you think it would have done to her throat had she taken a nice gulp? We're not talking natural rights, we're talking contract law. You can have a "What the fuck were you thinking?" clause, or it can end up being the prevailing standard. Either way, natural rights aren't a guarantee that disputes won't arise and be settled outside those bounds, depending on what the participants see as their vital interests in the case's outcome.

Again, assume a totally private system to avoi all the government BS. Had she spilled the coffee and gotten a mildly irritating burn, and tried to sue, McDonald's would have likely been able to tell her to go to hell, and the majority of the community would have agreed and sent her on her way, no harm to McDonald's business. However, the injuries she did get would make most reasonable people at least empathize with her, and perhaps inquire as to why McDonald's was selling a breakfast beverage at the temperature roughly the same as the Earth's core. In which case McDonald's might agree to pay up some money to mollify her and satisfy the community, who may not hold them strictly responsible, but still might want to see some action from them anyway to satisfy their perceived contractual requirements under the "What The Fuck Were You Thinking?" clause, be it real or implied. As in, "What the fuck were you thinking selling coffee that hot to someone in a drive-through who presumably wanted to drink it right then?"

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

FlyingAxe — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:42:42 GMT

I don't understand the question of relevance of natural rights. If there was no case of aggression, then why should someone pay up?

I am emotionally sympathetic to the view that a vendor who sells harmful product has to pay, but I am trying to figure out the legal principle (from libertarian point of view) justifying this emotion. What concerns me is that we are forcing X to pay for the damages that Y's own property did to Y. I read Kinsella's argument about negligence, but he doesn't talk about the situation when I was negligent, and your property caused damage.

I would certainly agree that not everything that is legal should be done. But what does this have to do with awarding damages?

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

MaikU — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:41:40 GMT

Intredasting thread. I was burnt by hot coffe when I was about 5-6 year old. 1st (and probably 2nd, don't remember now) degree burns on my left hand, no scars though. It was my fault (or an accident I'd say), but yeah, hot coffe can burn you, especially if you are wearing clothes, like this lady. McDonalds is partly to blame, but the biggest blame is on woman, because it was her mistake. McDonalds were idiots to sell products that are not ready to consume. Yeah, some people like slurping almost boiling liquids, but in general, it should be just a common sense. But legally, there is no blame on Mc part, I think. Stupid 'mericans.

Re: McDonald's and hot coffee warning

xahrx — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:32:47 GMT

"I still don't see how the lady's natural rights were violated."

Since we're not talking about criminal law, but civil, of what relevance are her natural rights? I mean, were we in an entirely private system, would they not be responsible to any degree whatsoever in your mind if they simply printed an implied consent contract on the side of each cup that said, "Warning, this coffee may rip your fucking skin off?" If that warning wasn't on there, and the general expectation with such drinks is that you could drink them without melting your digestive tract or burning your tongue clear out of your mouth, would they have any liability? I think if they were part of say a voluntary certification org, and that org told them to pay up and lower the temp of their coffee, that would be perfectly reasonable.

And more broadly speaking, just because someone may be within their rights to do something doesn't mean it's to be done. I'm well within my rights to paint my house in polka dots. Would people be out of line asking me what drugs I took to make me think it would be a good idea, or if they tried to pressure me to unfuck my house's paint job?