Is that grossly negligent? No. Is keeping the coffee excessively hot for cost reasons, thereby causing the customer to receive third degree burns on their genitals and winning in court? Yes.
While I fully understand that without universal insurance in the US, it may be most expedient to go after someone like McDonald's with deep pockets, I am tired of hearing how shocking and unconscionable it is that coffee could be served at a near boiling temperature.
I make coffee nearly every morning by boiling water in a tea kettle and pouring it over coffee grounds in a Melitta filter. If I poured or spilled it on my genitals, that would be bad. Doesn't make an approximately 200F temperature incorrect though.[1]
I'm familiar with the case, that's why I mentioned it. My point was that although they lost the civil suit, there weren't any criminal proceedings against C-levels. I understand the argument of negligence being as guilty as malicious intent but it creates a sweeping blanket that's hardly fair or enforceable.
I agree with your principles in theory but it's just impractical.
The Department of Justice was able to dismantle Arther Anderson after their fraudulent audits of Enron. Lots of things that are impractical are possible with sufficient effort. And the government has unlimited resources for those efforts.
You must hold systemic negligence and corruption accountable, or it perpetuates the cycle.
A) The DOJ had been looking at Anderson for years prior to Enron due to irregularities with other major firms like Waste Management Inc. Enron was not an isolated incident.
B) They were prosecuted for the very specific crime of obstruction of justice after they were caught destroying evidence. It wasn't some backlash against a nebulous problem.
C) Their conviction was overturned!
I'm not sure you could have picked a worse example for arguing your point.
They keep the coffee that hot because customers like hot coffee. That's the main reason I get coffee at McDonalds, not because it's great coffee (though it's not bad) but because it's HOT. Half the time I get coffee at Starbuck's it's only a litte better than piss-warm.
I don't think forbidding hot coffee at drive-thrus is unambiguously in favor of safety, since not-so-hot coffee encourages people to drink while driving, which could cause an accident. Some people want to drink on their way to the office or home, and others want coffee that is still hot when they get there. The consequence of the litigation seems to be that the former group of customers is privileged, but I'm not certain that is an overall social good even if you prioritize safety - and some would of course be happy to trade off others safety for their own hot coffee.
There seems to be an unlimited supply of people always popping up to "debunk" the "myths" about the Liebeck case who seem to deflect from the fact that it is normal for coffee to be brewed at near boiling temperatures[1] that cause the sort of damage that was at issue. I could burn myself severely while draining pasta too, if I pour hot water all over my pants and don't remove them; it doesn't mean boiling water is too hot for cooking nor that say, a manufacturer of a non-defective pot is to blame.
I make coffee nearly every morning by boiling water in a tea kettle and pouring it over coffee grounds in a Melitta filter. If I poured or spilled it on my genitals, that would be bad. Doesn't make an approximately 200F temperature incorrect though.[1]
[1] See the National Coffee Association on how to brew coffee at http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee