Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[THE_WIZARD_]

AA nails it.

[AlabamAlum]

Was at Ruth's Chris recently (their cowboy ribeye > their filet, BTW).

Anyway, they bring the steaks out sizzling on 500-degree plates. They tell you they're hot. Hell, you can see and hear the steak sizzling, and yes they've been threatened with lawsuits for burns.

[THE_WIZARD_]

...and the point there is...if you aren't smart enough to avoid getting burned by the plate...go eat at Shoney's with Doc Van Nosebleed.

[sardis]

So Mickey D's should have to lower the temperature on their coffee brewing process thus making a crappier product and losing millions of their loyal coffee drinkers

They don't seem to have suffered much. McDonald's coffee sales have increased dramatically and are one of the biggest sellers of coffee worldwide. For example, they are the number one seller of coffee in the UK.

That's because they still serve their coffee 175-190 F. And with the UK the same type of law suit didn't win.

From Wiki:

Similar lawsuits against McDonald's in the United Kingdom failed. In Bogle v. McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd., Field, J. rejected the claim that McDonald's could have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.

"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."[17

[THE_WIZARD_]

[AlabamAlum]

Starbuck's has won (and lost) similar cases here. Whether you win or lose these cases is not certain. I guess it depends on the judge you draw and the jury you strike.

[THE_WIZARD_]

[bluetick]

Forget the hot coffee. I eat mcgriddles on football Saturdays and as a result I am sorely depressed.

sonsabitches owe me bigtime

[THE_WIZARD_]

[THE_WIZARD_]

[AlabamAlum]

And I don't believe that the son pulled over so she could put cream and sugar in her coffee. I do believe he told the jury that, though.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The moral of the story is this AA:

Hot Coffee + Car + Stupid Old Lady = Severe Burns

Unfortunately the jury saw it as:

Hot Coffee + Car + Poor Old Lady = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[10ac]

1

[10ac]

Spacer,

See, I understand what you're saying about previous lawsuits and liability and precedence and whatnot. Here's what I am saying: I disagree with the previous suits just as I disagree with hers. Coffee should be that hot. You should expect it and take care not to spill it on yourself. Yes, I know that other places have dropped their coffee temps out of fear of lawsuits and thats a shame. Their coffee sucks now.

I want my coffee that hot and I do not need a warning. Just like I don't need 34 stickers on my ladder warning me that if I'm a dumbass, or do dumbassed things at the top of my ladder, I may fall and hurt myself.

To me, she should have had enough coffee at her advanced age to have expected it to be hot. If she is too doddering to remove the lid while sitting in a car, she should sit the coffee down and not touch it until it cools. Or not order it through a drive-thru. If I had been on the jury, it would have been hung or I would have argued until we not only ruled in favor of McD's but had hit the clumsy old bag for court costs and legal fees.

IMO, the only way that McDonald's should have been found liable in this -or any other spilled coffee suit- is if it were due to a cup defect or employee mistake (eg, the bottom falls out of the cup or the employee drops the coffee on the customer). Otherwise, stick with apple juice, you doddering old coffee-dropping granny.

EFZ

[10ac]

At 79 yo, the son was the big winner. He was probably pissed at having to take his mom down to the bank to cash her SS check so that he could pay the rent on his big screen TV at the local rent-to-own and intentionally goosed the engine as she was preparing her coffee. Hell, he probably through it on her. "Bitch making me carry her all over town." And then....DING DING DING, gold mine. "I'll stick her wrinkly ass in a home and partay"!

[10ac]

Of course, that's just conjecture on my part....still.....

[AlabamAlum]

It was the grandson who was driving which makes me believe even less that he pulled over so granny could balance the coffee between her friggin sweatpants-covered knees. I mean, c'mon, who in their right mind would teeter a cup of hot coffee between their knees to remove the lid and add sugar?

[Jungle Rat]

I think the main question is, what kind of moron buys coffee at McDonalds anyway? (Besides Wal*Mart shoppers).

[THE_WIZARD_]

Buying coffee at Starbuck's is a waste. Buying coffee at McD's is smart. Better coffee...half the price...

[Jungle Rat]

So now we know what kind of a moron buys his coffee at McDonalds.