Hey, it's time for the Stella Awards !!!!

Well, I agree that the fact that it spilled was indeed solely her fault. The fact that the liquid that fell onto her lap when she spilled it was capable of doing the damage it did was not her fault.

I wouldnt expect that anyone would have known the coffee they just ordered would be able to cause them 3rd degree burns. The coffee I make myself surely couldnt...but Id still call it hot. McD sold someone something that was more dangerous than any person should reasonably expect.

I suppose then that we disagree on this topic.

We both like cars.

Kumbaya

They can't put anything on the Internet that's not true.

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, I agree that the fact that it spilled was indeed solely her fault. The fact that the liquid that fell onto her lap when she spilled it was capable of doing the damage it did was not her fault.

It wasn't intended by it's manufacturer to be spilled on her lap. To put it another way, she mis-used it, whether she intended to or not.

bravenrace wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, I agree that the fact that it spilled was indeed solely her fault. The fact that the liquid that fell onto her lap when she spilled it was capable of doing the damage it did was not her fault.

It wasn't intended by it's manufacturer to be spilled on her lap. To put it another way, she mis-used it, whether she intended to or not.

If it is hot enough to burn her lap that badly, I have a feeling she would have burned her lap pretty badly.

bravenrace wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, I agree that the fact that it spilled was indeed solely her fault. The fact that the liquid that fell onto her lap when she spilled it was capable of doing the damage it did was not her fault.

It wasn't intended by it's manufacturer to be spilled on her lap. To put it another way, she mis-used it, whether she intended to or not.

intention aside, its reasonable to expect that you wouldnt be injured that badly from contact with a product that is intended to go into your body, regardless of where that contact occurs.

What if, instead, she drank the coffee, as it was intended, at that same temperature, and her tongue was burned so bad that pieces of it fell off? Then her suit wouldnt have been frivolous? Then it wouldve been substantiated? But because it was her vagina, its now laughable?

c'mon man...

4cylndrfury wrote: But because it was her vagina, its now laughable?

Is this a trick question?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: But because it was her vagina, its now laughable?

Is this a trick question?

But because it was her KOOTUS, its now laughable?

FTFY

I lol'd

4cylndrfury wrote: If you told me my coffee was hot, Id think "good, I like hot coffee", thinking that it would be a peppy 105°.

seriously ??????? you consider 105° to be hot coffee ... that would barely be considered warm .... only 6 - 7° above body heat

alfadriver wrote: BTW, why are you running a percolator? I've not seen those for decades. Everyone uses drip machines now. And even the best of the best of those struggle to get high enough water temps to brew (they can heat what's left too well, though).

you can find percolators pretty much anywhere ....

well ... not everyone ... I like perked coffee.... but then I'm not a coffee snob (I'm not a beer snob either .. I drink Miller Lite )

4cylndrfury wrote: ...McDonalds had either intentionally altered, or failed to perform necessary maintenance on, the coffee maker thermostat, thus allowing the coffee to exceed the boiling point of water.

You realize that's impossible, right?

Coffee that exceeds the boiling point of water is called... STEAM.

If you boil water to 212F and keep adding heat, the liquid will REMAIN 212F.

dang ... how did I miss that ??

I brew my coffee in a French press using just off-boiling water. And when I'm done, the temperature is perfect! But, my grounds are room temperature. And I use room-temperature ceramic mugs. Considering that McDonalds uses covered expanded polystyrene cups, which allow for little heat transfer, and that the larger size results in a lower surface to volume ratio, logic implies that the tenperature of McDonald's coffee will be significantly hotter than coffee brewed at home even with the same temperature water.

4cylndrfury wrote: I wouldnt expect that anyone would have known the coffee they just ordered would be able to cause them 3rd degree burns.

In the 40+ years that I've been drinking coffee, I've had a lot.

I never ask the temperature, but I DO know the proper way to drink coffee is to assume it is hot and it can burn you.

I've gotten burned, but only when I am dumb and forget this fundamental truth.

4cylndrfury wrote: IMHO, nothing sold to the general public for the sole purpose of human consumption should be capable of generating a 3rd degree burn. End of story. The fact that they sold food, capable of melting off your skin, is negligent, regardless of why it got onto your skin.

With all due respect, ALL food is served at temperatures that can cause a 3rd degree burn. In fact, it is ILLEGAL to serve it at a temperature that can't.

The USDA has varying minimum temps depending on the type of food, but none of them is recommended to be served at less than 140F.

According to the Red Cross, 140F can cause a 3rd degree burn if in contact with the skin for 5 seconds.

Maybe less if it's your koochee.

Half the time, you want to crucify the govt for their wanton destruction of humanity through stupidity, waste, and arrogance. The rest of the time, you lean on their ideology and rhetoric to back you up?

Regardless, 190 degrees is too damn hot, end of story. Maybe my "peppy coffee" at 105 is not a reasonable number. But 120 is, thats a really hot shower, still 70 degrees cooler. Youre right, 230 degree water is called vapor, so my ORIGINAL POST IN THIS THREAD, one Ive already admitted was erroneous, doesnt pass muster. That doesnt mean that the hot-as-36m3 coffee, that McD already admitted they knew was so hot it posed a risk, that a jury of OUR PEERS, one that could be made up of any of us, agreed was negligently hot. Stella only wanted her bills paid, and missed work accounted for. She was willing to settle out of court for it. The JURY gave her sooooo much more...ooohhh evil bitch, stealin all that money, frivolously tortin up our system...

Like I said, we are all here because we all like cars. Kumbay - freakin - ya. Im out.

Why are we arguing over this?

4cylndrfury wrote: Half the time, you want to crucify the govt for their wanton destruction of humanity through stupidity, waste, and arrogance. The rest of the time, you lean on their ideology and rhetoric to back you up? Regardless, 190 degrees is too damn hot, end of story. Maybe my "peppy coffee" at 105 is not a reasonable number. But 120 is, thats a really hot shower, still 70 degrees cooler. Youre right, 230 degree water is called vapor, so my ORIGINAL POST IN THIS THREAD, one Ive already admitted was erroneous, doesnt pass muster. That doesnt mean that the hot-as-36m3 coffee, that McD already admitted they knew was so hot it posed a risk, that a jury of OUR PEERS, one that could be made up of any of us, agreed was negligently hot. Stella only wanted her bills paid, and missed work accounted for. She was willing to settle out of court for it. The JURY gave her sooooo much more...ooohhh evil bitch, stealin all that money, frivolously tortin up our system... Like I said, we are all here because we all like cars. Kumbay - freakin - ya. Im out.

120° still isn't very hot ... (yeah, too hot for a shower) but that's the temp that I have my water heater set for ... and I wash dishes using pure hot ... it doesn't burn my hands .... I prefer my coffee much hotter than that ... at that temp, I'd have to drink it down, almost like I was chugging a beer .... when I put the cup in the the cup holder and head on down the road, I love for my coffee to still be at a hot/drinkable temp 20 - 30 or more miles later ...

so I guess the best solution for me is to drop this discussion, since you're never going to come around to my way of thinking and I'm never going agree with your thoughts/attitudes

Life is too short to get all worked up arguing about an incident from 1994, guys. That goes for all of you. Now sit down and open your textbooks to chapter 5.

Someone figured the answer out.

Though I'm waiting for the lawsuit to come with this one... "I spilled it in my lap and it caused shrinkage"

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

The point was quite simply that I completely disagree with your defense of Stella. She was fully responsible, and the court made a grave mistake (which courts are getting increasingly good at).

McDonalds did not admit guilt. Their quality assurance manager said that the temperature which the coffee was served could burn you. That is a factual statement for every cup of coffee served in restaurants across this country. You are reading into it an admission of guilt. No smoking gun, just simple honesty. Coffee can burn 'ya. Duh.

Check the facts. You can get a 3rd degree burn at 120F.

Why are you having trouble with people disagreeing with you?

Klayfish wrote: Someone figured the answer out. Though I'm waiting for the lawsuit to come with this one... "I spilled it in my lap and it caused shrinkage"

I HATE cold coffee