[endorphone]

Are you a lawyer? Because this take is quite remarkable, especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent, coupled with a lot of supporting but not entirely factual claims to justify that position. I feel like the same people who were jeering at the victim just marched over to sainting her and demonizing McDonalds.

The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has to be clear cut.

How McDonalds no longer engages in "corporate negligence": they put pronounced warnings on the cup that it's a dangerously hot substance. That's it. They did not lower the temperature (as is frequently claimed, nor is the temperature at all outside of normal industry standards, yet this is being repeatedly stated throughout this thread -- coffee, brewing with boiling water, is hot). You can get a searingly hot cup of coffee from most quick-serve restaurants today depending upon how freshly it was brewed. This is a case where the solution is more warnings on things.

This case was, however, an example of bad brand management, and perhaps throwing good money after bad for something they could have privately settled early on.

This is certainly not a hill I want to die on, and generally arguing against the prevalent opinion (which is overwhelming the one that you and the GP have expressed, albeit almost always positioning it like it's contrarian) is self-defeating, however this whole case is fascinating in how public perception shifts.

[aggie]

I don't know what makes you so certain that general sentiment is anti-McDonald's in this case. I have only ever heard the story given as an example of the frivolous lawsuits brought by overly-litigious Americans. It makes a good example of that ("they sued over hot coffee?"). The alternate framing, that McDonald's made coffee too hot, doesn't make for a very noteworthy or pithy story, so I'm skeptical of your take on the public opinion.

[pdonis]

> nor is the temperature at all outside of normal industry standards

According to the facts presented at the trial, it is, at least for the fast food industry. All other fast food chains were found to serve coffee at about 140 F.

[ChainOfFools]

> The Internet extreme position machine. Everything has to be clear cut

aka compression machine. optimized to trigger brains' reward circuitry for accomplishment by 'tidying up' unmanageable landscapes of disjointed data into easily stored and recalled bimodal silhouettes of same.

[205guy]

This is actually a very interesting and seemingly accurate description of what powers so much of the internet.

[coolsunglasses]

The standard temperate you brew coffee at is 200F, less if at high altitude. McDonalds coffee is served at 180-190F and brewed at something higher than 200F and lower than boiling.

Typical coffee serving temperature is 155-175F. I'm considered unusual among my friends for being able to sip 170-180F coffee. 190F is just way too hot.

[endorphone]

205F is the ideal brewing temperature, and is just a snip under boiling (212F). Serving temperature is entirely a function of waiting time from brewing, and is commonly between 165-185 everywhere. For take out shops it tends to be higher as there is the expectation that users have a delay before they drink it, and that many add cream or milk.

Again, if you buy a coffee at McDonalds today, or at Starbucks, or virtually anywhere else, you'll get a coffee that can be as hot or hotter. It's a hot beverage.

[lovegoblin]

> the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent

Now, yes. Not 25 years ago.

[amatecha]

Sadly, from what I've observed over the years, "McDonalds hot coffee" is usually the most immediately-referenced example when the topic of "frivolous lawsuits" comes up. Usually in the context of someone joking they're going to file a lawsuit about some silly thing that would be totally ridiculous to pursue. "Someone spilled coffee on herself and then sued McDonalds when it burned her", as if that's somehow frivolous.

FWIW I think the temperature of coffee is way too hot at most places. It drives me crazy. If I can't drink it immediately after them handing it to me? Too hot!

[marcosdumay]

Normally coffee is not brewed on boiling water, and losses a lot of heat during the brewing process. So, McDonalds' coffee (and the ones on many more stores) is significantly hotter than normal coffee.

But recently brewed coffee is dangerous anyway, it's quite stupid to hold it with one's legs. Still, I don't know about the details, and even the defamation she suffered might be enough for the punishment.

[crdrost]

I don’t know how fast food companies brew it, but frequently coffee shops who do drips and care about the flavor more insist that the most important thing in drip coffee is a temperature that’s only around 10°F/5°C under boiling.

Of course if they do brew that, they won’t give it to you before either adding a bit of cool water (most places prefer to brew strong and then dilute) or letting it cool down (if they just insist on a strong-taste brand).

Coffee nuts are a fan of really high temperature in my experience. They just know that you can’t taste the difference if your first sip burns off your taste buds.

[fencepost]

The grounds and equipment are not at similarly high temperatures, so the coffee going into the cup is significantly cooler than the water being poured.

IIRC at the time the McDonald's stated rationale was that by serving at that temperature it would be at a good drinking temperature when people arrived at their offices. These days that seems ludicrous to me.

[briandear]

> especially given that the overwhelming public sentiment is that McDonalds was heinously negligent

Citation needed. Anecdotally, every person I ever talked to about that case either had a profound eye roll or a shrug about how people will sue over anything.

If I bought a hammer and smashed my finger with it, should I sue Home Depot for selling me a hammer that was too hard and not warning me about it? That’s pretty much the basis of the McDonald’s case: they sold a hot beverage, some lady sticks it between her legs and it spills. A reasonable person could have foreseen that a hot beverage, stored in an insecure manner, could pose a spilling hazard and that hot liquids have the potential to scald. A woman in her 70s has been around enough hot liquids in her life that she should have known the risk of scalding. None of that is McDonald’s fault. It was just easy to manipulate the jury into the award by using emotion and painting McDonalds as some uncaring villain. That case was frivolous— but since it made it to the jury, the old lady won and now we all get to pay more when we buy coffee from restaurants to cover the higher insurance costs restaurants must now pass on to the customer.