Woman sues Qatar Airways over 'scalding hot' spilled coffee, alleges severe burns and
- Thread starter spaminator
- Start date
I was talking with my daughter, who works in the justice system, about the McDonalds vs Liebeck case and she mentioned something I had not heard before. The optimum brewing temperature for extracting the most flavour out of coffee is 195°F. It's a "mileage" thing. It was also mentioned in the story that BOOMer linked to that Liebeck's original requests to McDonalds were to cover medical and directly related incidental expenses only, around $20K. McDonalds offered $800. While this case is often held as an example of a "frivolous lawsuit", it could more accurately be described as an "escalation" resulting from McDonalds refusal to help the victim in the first place. In reality, I can see McDonalds point in not wanting to start the ball rolling on an endless series of coffee spills, after all, winning big in court over nothing is the Amercan dream isn't it? 
Further, McDonald's knew about the overheated coffee problem, and in fact had ordered its franchisees to reduce the burner temperature to 170 F, which order the restaurant in question had not complied with. That was a major factor in deciding the punitive damages.I was talking with my daughter, who works in the justice system, about the McDonalds vs Liebeck case and she mentioned something I had not heard before. The optimum brewing temperature for extracting the most flavour out of coffee is 195°F. It's a "mileage" thing. It was also mentioned in the story that BOOMer linked to that Liebeck's original requests to McDonalds were to cover medical and directly related incidental expenses only, around $20K. McDonalds offered $800. While this case is often held as an example of a "frivolous lawsuit", it could more accurately be described as an "escalation" resulting from McDonalds refusal to help the victim in the first place. In reality, I can see McDonalds point in not wanting to start the ball rolling on an endless series of coffee spills, after all, winning big in court over nothing is the Amercan dream isn't it?
I remember it well. The papers all screamed "$4 Million for Hot Coffee!" The followup, where the judge knocked it down to $640,000, and the later settlement, presumably for considerably less, never made it into the press. I have no doubt Boomster and millions of others are still convinced of the "fact" that McDonald's had to pay out $4 million.
I hadn't heard that they were asked to lower their brewing temperature. Lower brewing temperatures don't mean bad coffee, it just means less coffee per bean so to speak. While I've never tried it I've heard people that claim "cold brewed" coffee, coffee brewed for longer times at room temperature, makes the best cup of coffee you can find. The whole temperature thing is definitely a business decision from where I sit, higher temperatures means more coffee faster, so the bottom line is winning out over customer safety.
Not like the not the news media spread that one around. Cause like that just doesn't make headlines.
Well, if you want to form your conclusions knowing that you don't have the full story, that's up to you.
"To save a fool from his folly the gods themselves contend in vain."
One has to form conclusions from the information available. Most of us do not have time to surf the net all dayn long so when the media drops a story that is usually the end of the information stream. I bet if the judge had upped the award from 20 mill to 100 mil the media would have been all over it.
I think you mean when the media drops a story you choose for that to be the end of the information stream.
I'm not saying you need to follow up on every story you see. Just that you'll look less stupid if you keep your tongue behind your teeth until you're in command of a reasonably complete set of facts.
Here's another one: there never was a "Twinkie defense."
That pretty much says it all. Media manipulation has become somewhat of an art form these days, truth and objectivity have taken second place to things like readership share and hidden agendas. You have to be skeptically cautious as to what sources you label trustworthy and reputable.
But one thing remains true, an informed opinion beats an uninformed opinion hands down.
I was talking with my daughter, who works in the justice system, about the McDonalds vs Liebeck case and she mentioned something I had not heard before. The optimum brewing temperature for extracting the most flavour out of coffee is 195°F. It's a "mileage" thing. It was also mentioned in the story that BOOMer linked to that Liebeck's original requests to McDonalds were to cover medical and directly related incidental expenses only, around $20K. McDonalds offered $800. While this case is often held as an example of a "frivolous lawsuit", it could more accurately be described as an "escalation" resulting from McDonalds refusal to help the victim in the first place. In reality, I can see McDonalds point in not wanting to start the ball rolling on an endless series of coffee spills, after all, winning big in court over nothing is the Amercan dream isn't it?
There is more to the story. According to friends of the complainant she admitted that she was actually holding the paper cup with the coffee in it between her legs. She won a lawsuit by being utterly stupid.