Cop sues starbucks, claims coffee forced him to have a bowel resection

Started by deleted500612
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
D

deleted500612

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-suing-starbucks-coffee-hot/story?id=30848026

So, this cop is suing starbucks for $750,000 after spilling hot coffee all over his lap. He says it caused his Crohn's disease to flare up and forced him to have a bowel resection. It also caused emotional harm to his wife and their marriage because they could not be intimate for a time...

Ok let's ignore the fact that drinking coffee (which this guy seemed to do a lot of) is probably more likely to aggravate Crohn's than spilling it on your lap.

Let's assume for a moment that the spilled coffee did aggravate his Crohn's. When do people become responsible for their own stupidity? Yeah, coffee is hot. Be careful with it. Unless starbucks cups are faulty (which I doubt, seeing as millions of others drink it every day without scolding themselves with hot coffee), he should be laughed out of the court room. Sucks this happened to him, but take responsibility for your own stupidity and stop looking for a quick pay day. If you accidentally cut your finger off with a kitchen knife, you don't get to sue the manufacturer just because you weren't careful with an inherently dangerous product. A better idea might be to sue your mom for raising a greedy *******.
 
As a prior Sbux employee, I can tell you that it is hodgepodge that there was not sleeve on his drink...sleeves are always used and if it is a coffee/americano, we MUST double cup it if they request such.

The likelihood of a faulty cup being given out is understandable and possible, but to sue 750,000 for damages? It's chump change for this company but it's still hilarious IMO.
 
sidefx said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-suing-starbucks-coffee-hot/story?id=30848026

So, this cop is suing starbucks for $750,000 after spilling hot coffee all over his lap. He says it caused his Crohn's disease to flare up and forced him to have a bowel resection. It also caused emotional harm to his wife and their marriage because they could not be intimate for a time...

Ok let's ignore the fact that drinking coffee (which this guy seemed to do a lot of) is probably more likely to aggravate Crohn's than spilling it on your lap.

Let's assume for a moment that the spilled coffee did aggravate his Crohn's. When do people become responsible for their own stupidity? Yeah, coffee is hot. Be careful with it. Unless starbucks cups are faulty (which I doubt, seeing as millions of others drink it every day without scolding themselves with hot coffee), he should be laughed out of the court room. Sucks this happened to him, but take responsibility for your own stupidity and stop looking for a quick pay day. If you accidentally cut your finger off with a kitchen knife, you don't get to sue the manufacturer just because you weren't careful with an inherently dangerous product. A better idea might be to sue your mom for raising a greedy *******.
Click to expand...
I'm suing Starbucks as well. Since their coffee tastes like burnt ****, I decided to just brew some actual **** and save some money while maintaining taste. Ever since, I haven't been able to get a gf and it's caused me psychological damage.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
AlteredScale said:
As a prior Sbux employee, I can tell you that it is hodgepodge that there was not sleeve on his drink...sleeves are always used and if it is a coffee/americano, we MUST double cup it if they request such.

The likelihood of a faulty cup being given out is understandable and possible, but to sue 750,000 for damages? It's chump change for this company but it's still hilarious IMO.
Click to expand...

The Starbucks in my hospital doesn't put sleeves on for you, they sit in a basket near where you pick up the coffee and you put them on yourself.
 
AlteredScale said:
As a prior Sbux employee, I can tell you that it is hodgepodge that there was not sleeve on his drink...sleeves are always used and if it is a coffee/americano, we MUST double cup it if they request such. ... I was specifically talking about the drive thru since that's where it happened for the cop.
Click to expand...

Well... about once a week I get a sleeveless cup from the drive through.
I could ask for one if I wanted, but I can easily hold it long enough to transfer it to a cup holder.
 
On top of that if that caused you to have a bowel resection you were going to have one sooner or later so no one should have to pay his surgery costs.
 
PL198 said:
jokes on you for getting starbucks
Click to expand...

You haven't tasted the coffee in this hospital...
Only one of the ICUs here has a keurig machine (so I can bring my own from home). The rest have some off-brand sludgemachine.
There are lots of other coffee stores around the hospital, but only Starbucks is along my driving route.
 
Doctor Bob said:
You haven't tasted the coffee in this hospital...
Only one of the ICUs here has a keurig machine (so I can bring my own from home). The rest have some off-brand sludgemachine.
There are lots of other coffee stores around the hospital, but only Starbucks is along my driving route.
Click to expand...
Starbucks is the only one outside of Gas Stations open early enough to get coffee before surgery rounds. They have me right where they want me.
 
I like that his original idea of his "loss" was $10 million. I wonder if his attorney talked him down from being completely ridiculous.

Didn't a lady successfully sue McDonalds a few years ago for the same thing?
 
Ismet said:
Didn't a lady successfully sue McDonalds a few years ago for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Sort of. It's used as an example of the U.S. litigious nature and frivolous lawsuits. However, I actually read a couple of articles about the case awhile back, and there's substantially more to it then the popular narrative of "stupid lady doesn't know hot coffee is hot".
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
colbgw02 said:
Sort of. It's used as an example of the U.S. litigious nature and frivolous lawsuits. However, I actually read a couple of articles about the case awhile back, and there's substantially more to it then the popular narrative of "stupid lady doesn't know hot coffee is hot".
Click to expand...
Yeah here's some more information about that case:
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and in fact, never offered more than $800.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct.
Click to expand...
 
Donald Juan said:
So, it was Ford's fault? If there were cupholders she wouldn't have had to put the coffee in between her legs and wouldn't have gotten injured.
Click to expand...

lady should take ownership of ford clearly

3rd degree burns from coffee? jesus I didn't know it was that hot
 
Tired said:
Yeah. After reading the accounts (which frankly weren't even really contested by McDonald's) I had a ton of sympathy for that lady and agreed with the finding of liability.
Click to expand...

loris said:
The car was actually parked. It was also a 1989 Ford Probe so it didn't have cup holders.
Click to expand...

I'm still confused....how is she only 20% liable? What facts generate sympathy?

I guess I could go actually look it up...
 
Wordead said:
I'm still confused....how is she only 20% liable? What facts generate sympathy?

I guess I could go actually look it up...
Click to expand...

yeah I don't really get the mcdonalds liability here unless they say the coffee was a much hotter temp than it normally is
 
Donald Juan said:
So, it was Ford's fault? If there were cupholders she wouldn't have had to put the coffee in between her legs and wouldn't have gotten injured.
Click to expand...
I never said that Ford was at fault; I was just stating the facts of the case and explaining why she had held the coffee between her knees.
PL198 said:
yeah I don't really get the mcdonalds liability here unless they say the coffee was a much hotter temp than it normally is
Click to expand...
It was. From the link that I posted/quoted earlier:
  • "By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
  • Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
  • Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
  • The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
  • McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
  • From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
  • Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
  • At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
  • Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then required temperature;
  • McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
  • McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
  • Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen."
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants wiki article for more info
 
loris said:
I never said that Ford was at fault; I was just stating the facts of the case and explaining why she had held the coffee between her knees.

It was. From the link that I posted/quoted earlier:
  • "By corporate specifications, McDonald's sold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
  • Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
  • Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
  • The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
  • McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
  • From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
  • Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
  • At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
  • Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's then required temperature;
  • McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
  • McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
  • Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen."
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants wiki article for more info
Click to expand...
I still see this as a frivolous lawsuit.

I mean, if I go to applebee's and order a fajita which comes out on a sizzling skillet at temperatures above boiling water, we could list:
-applebee's knew their skillets were hot.
-applebee's knew they were hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.
-somebody somewhere once said, "hey it's stupid to serve hot skillets to people, someone could burn themself."
-applebee's knowingly served these skillets to minors without any warning.
-a 42 year old man in east Texas last year burned his finger on his skillet, he was only offered a free appetizer for his next visit
-there is no warning on the skillet to inform customers that their sizzling hot skillet is indeed, hot
-the plaintiff offered to settle with applebee's for 50,000, but they denied him

How many people burn themselves on ovens every year? Should we blame kenmore and sears for knowingly selling a product that gets hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns?
 
Ismet said:
I like that his original idea of his "loss" was $10 million. I wonder if his attorney talked him down from being completely ridiculous.

Didn't a lady successfully sue McDonalds a few years ago for the same thing?
Click to expand...

Yeah he says "I thought it was worth $10 million dollars. Actually I thought it could have been higher."... but in his kind-hearted generosity he is only seeking 750k just to show us that he really isn't a greedy guy, just another innocent victim of corporate America 🙄
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Donald Juan said:
I still see this as a frivolous lawsuit.

I mean, if I go to applebee's and order a fajita which comes out on a sizzling skillet at temperatures above boiling water, we could list:
-applebee's knew their skillets were hot.
-applebee's knew they were hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.
-somebody somewhere once said, "hey it's stupid to serve hot skillets to people, someone could burn themself."
-applebee's knowingly served these skillets to minors without any warning.
-a 42 year old man in east Texas last year burned his finger on his skillet, he was only offered a free appetizer for his next visit
-there is no warning on the skillet to inform customers that their sizzling hot skillet is indeed, hot
-the plaintiff offered to settle with applebee's for 50,000, but they denied him

How many people burn themselves on ovens every year? Should we blame kenmore and sears for knowingly selling a product that gets hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns?
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing with you about whether or not the lawsuit was frivolous but when is the last time you went to an Applebee's and the server didn't say, "be careful the plate is very hot"?
 
Tired said:
My recollection was that McDonald's policy is to serve coffee at like 170deg, and this restaurant had been serving it at just below boiling, despite being warned by their corporate office several times. Also, they had failed to secure the lid, it was only half-on. Consequently, when she set it between her lid is spilled all over her crotch, resulting in full-thickness genital burns that required skin grafting.

Again, I'm just going off my memory, but that was how I recall reading it.
Click to expand...

Eh, but it says she was in the process of deliberately removing the lid while holding it between her knees, so if the lid was not properly secured in the first place that is irrelevant to how she ended up spilling it on herself. Also on the wiki page it says nothing about the lid not being secured properly. It's more the fact that she was fumbling with it between her knees, which caused her to spill it. The spill is 100% her fault. McDonald's only fault here seems to be serving the coffee "too hot", and even that is an opinion, as I know many people like their coffee served extremely hot so that it will stay warm for longer and they dont have to drink it immediately. The fact that the two biggest coffee chains, McDonalds and Starbucks, both continue to serve their coffee between 176-194F (which is as hot or hotter than the McDonald's coffee that the burnt the plaintiff in this case, which was estimated at 180-190F) suggests that this is actually the preferred temperature for many customers.

I think in cases like this, emotional responses really cloud the jury's judgments. They see a poor old lady who suffered horrifically disfiguring injuries and can barely afford to pay her medical bills. Then they see McDonald's, the corporate bully who gave her the coffee that caused this, so let's just make them pay for it so that we don't feel as bad for her and can all sleep better at night! It makes everyone feel like they did a good thing for this poor lady, but was it really McDonald's fault? I don't think it was, and absolutely not 80% McDonald's fault as the jury ruled. If anything, those percentages should be reversed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the cop should be sued 750K for driving through starbucks and being a sissy instead of a real man at dunkin donuts or a Qwik Trip. When i think of starbucks i think of unemployed authors and middle school teachers, not dudes with a glock on their hip. Its really hard to take anyone seriously when they're holding one of those DB starbucks pro-socialist cups, with the whipped cream on top.
 
shibby1111 said:
the cop should be sued 750K for driving through starbucks and being a sissy instead of a real man at dunkin donuts or a Qwik Trip. When i think of starbucks i think of unemployed authors and middle school teachers, not dudes with a glock on their hip. Its really hard to take anyone seriously when they're holding one of those DB starbucks pro-socialist cups, with the whipped cream on top.
Click to expand...
:bang:
 
Donald Juan said:
I still see this as a frivolous lawsuit.

I mean, if I go to applebee's and order a fajita which comes out on a sizzling skillet at temperatures above boiling water, we could list:
-applebee's knew their skillets were hot.
-applebee's knew they were hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.
-somebody somewhere once said, "hey it's stupid to serve hot skillets to people, someone could burn themself."
-applebee's knowingly served these skillets to minors without any warning.
-a 42 year old man in east Texas last year burned his finger on his skillet, he was only offered a free appetizer for his next visit
-there is no warning on the skillet to inform customers that their sizzling hot skillet is indeed, hot
-the plaintiff offered to settle with applebee's for 50,000, but they denied him

How many people burn themselves on ovens every year? Should we blame kenmore and sears for knowingly selling a product that gets hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns?
Click to expand...

the oven thing will happen one day if tort reform doesn't happen. people accept less and less responsibility per day.
 
Mad Jack said:
Most places that serve Starbucks in hospitals aren't actually Starbucks, they're places that have licensed the right to sell Starbucks coffee, hence their lower standards in regard to the particulars.
Click to expand...

The actual Starbucks in our hospital also just has the sleeves in a basket on the counter. But if you order a regular coffee, they give it to you at the register with a sleeve. Any other drink that requires preparation is given to you at the end of the counter, and you have to put the sleeve on.
 
sidefx said:
Eh, but it says she was in the process of deliberately removing the lid while holding it between her knees, so if the lid was not properly secured in the first place that is irrelevant to how she ended up spilling it on herself. Also on the wiki page it says nothing about the lid not being secured properly. It's more the fact that she was fumbling with it between her knees, which caused her to spill it. The spill is 100% her fault. McDonald's only fault here seems to be serving the coffee "too hot", and even that is an opinion, as I know many people like their coffee served extremely hot so that it will stay warm for longer and they dont have to drink it immediately. The fact that the two biggest coffee chains, McDonalds and Starbucks, both continue to serve their coffee between 176-194F (which is as hot or hotter than the McDonald's coffee that the burnt the plaintiff in this case, which was estimated at 180-190F) suggests that this is actually the preferred temperature for many customers.

I think in cases like this, emotional responses really cloud the jury's judgments. They see a poor old lady who suffered horrifically disfiguring injuries and can barely afford to pay her medical bills. Then they see McDonald's, the corporate bully who gave her the coffee that caused this, so let's just make them pay for it so that we don't feel as bad for her and can all sleep better at night! It makes everyone feel like they did a good thing for this poor lady, but was it really McDonald's fault? I don't think it was, and absolutely not 80% McDonald's fault as the jury ruled. If anything, those percentages should be reversed.
Click to expand...

do you know what a third degree burn is? if you bought a drink that was hot enough to go all the way through the dermis, it was definitely too hot
if you want your drink to stay hot forever get a thermal mug or something
 
Psai said:
do you know what a third degree burn is? if you bought a drink that was hot enough to go all the way through the dermis, it was definitely too hot
if you want your drink to stay hot forever get a thermal mug or something
Click to expand...

Except the coffee that caused third degree burns to this woman was within the range of standard serving temperature that most major retailers, including mcdonalds and starbucks, continue to sell their coffee at... so there's that. Most people just don't realize how hot it is because they don't spill it all over their lap like an idiot. Frankly it shouldn't matter whether it would cause third degree burns vs second degree burns. To me that's like worrying about whether your miter saw will cut your hand clean off or only down to the bone if you stick your hand in the blade.

Just treat a hot coffee as you would boiling water-- with a healthy amount of respect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm waiting for someone to order spicy food and then say it caused them significant GI distress or something like that
 
sidefx said:
Except the coffee that caused third degree burns to this woman was within the range of standard serving temperature that most major retailers, including mcdonalds and starbucks, continue to sell their coffee at... so there's that. Most people just don't realize how hot it is because they don't spill it all over their lap like an idiot. Frankly it shouldn't matter whether it would cause third degree burns vs second degree burns. To me that's like worrying about whether your miter saw will cut your hand clean off or only down to the bone if you stick your hand in the blade.

Just treat a hot coffee as you would boiling water-- with a healthy amount of respect.
Click to expand...

Amen!
 
Ismet said:
The actual Starbucks in our hospital also just has the sleeves in a basket on the counter. But if you order a regular coffee, they give it to you at the register with a sleeve. Any other drink that requires preparation is given to you at the end of the counter, and you have to put the sleeve on.
Click to expand...

Coffee at Starbucks is right around 190. It needs to be so hot because the optimum extraction temperature is so high for that brewing method. Thus, a sleeve is needed right away.

Espresso drinks made with milk are much lower temps. 150-160 ish. You can get away without a sleeve for many of those, if you don't mind warm hands. Some people prefer that.

I don't like very hot drinks, so I ask for mine to be made with milk steamed only to 120-140. Some stores abide by local health codes / corporate policy that say they have to take it up to at least 140, others are willing / able to use the cooler temp. Or I just ask them to use cold milk, but no ice, so that the resulting latte is just tepid after the addition of the hot espresso.

Great. Now I want coffee.
 
Promethean said:
Coffee at Starbucks is right around 190. It needs to be so hot because the optimum extraction temperature is so high for that brewing method. Thus, a sleeve is needed right away.

Espresso drinks made with milk are much lower temps. 150-160 ish. You can get away without a sleeve for many of those, if you don't mind warm hands. Some people prefer that.

I don't like very hot drinks, so I ask for mine to be made with milk steamed only to 120-140. Some stores abide by local health codes / corporate policy that say they have to take it up to at least 140, others are willing / able to use the cooler temp. Or I just ask them to use cold milk, but no ice, so that the resulting latte is just tepid after the addition of the hot espresso.

Great. Now I want coffee.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a wimp who needs to use double pot holders to take something out of the oven, so it's all just a general OMG THIS IS HOT to me 😉
 
Psai said:
do you know what a third degree burn is? if you bought a drink that was hot enough to go all the way through the dermis, it was definitely too hot
if you want your drink to stay hot forever get a thermal mug or something
Click to expand...

It isn't about keeping it hot forever, it is about extraction method. The size of the grind, the temperature of the water, and the time that the two will be in contact with one another all coordinate in a fairly complicated equation to result in coffee which has the desired flavor profile. You can make coffee with cold water... it just takes hours for the flavor to develop and it will be a different beverage than hot brewed coffee. Every degree lower significantly alters the composition of the final product, especially if the other factors are held the same. This is a Le Chatlier's problem. If they are going to drop the temp, they have to recalibrate the size of the coffee grind, the amount of grounds used, and the amount of time that the coffee grounds and water will be together, or else the resulting product will be adversely affected.

If you are buying hot coffee, it will either be fresh and hot, or old and cold. There isn't a fresh and safe-temperature option. That is the inherent risk the consumer takes because of the nature of the product they want.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
sidefx said:
Eh, but it says she was in the process of deliberately removing the lid while holding it between her knees, so if the lid was not properly secured in the first place that is irrelevant to how she ended up spilling it on herself. Also on the wiki page it says nothing about the lid not being secured properly. It's more the fact that she was fumbling with it between her knees, which caused her to spill it. The spill is 100% her fault. McDonald's only fault here seems to be serving the coffee "too hot", and even that is an opinion, as I know many people like their coffee served extremely hot so that it will stay warm for longer and they dont have to drink it immediately. The fact that the two biggest coffee chains, McDonalds and Starbucks, both continue to serve their coffee between 176-194F (which is as hot or hotter than the McDonald's coffee that the burnt the plaintiff in this case, which was estimated at 180-190F) suggests that this is actually the preferred temperature for many customers.

I think in cases like this, emotional responses really cloud the jury's judgments. They see a poor old lady who suffered horrifically disfiguring injuries and can barely afford to pay her medical bills. Then they see McDonald's, the corporate bully who gave her the coffee that caused this, so let's just make them pay for it so that we don't feel as bad for her and can all sleep better at night! It makes everyone feel like they did a good thing for this poor lady, but was it really McDonald's fault? I don't think it was, and absolutely not 80% McDonald's fault as the jury ruled. If anything, those percentages should be reversed.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit was about the impossible hotness of the beverage and the lack of secured lids, both of which were viewed as negligent. This coffee was so hot that if you put a finger in it for five seconds, you'd probably lose it or require extensive grafting to keep it. Corporate was like, "stahp, this is an accident waiting to happen" and yet the place continued to sell the coffee this hot and not properly secure their lids to boot. Handing a beverage that's damn near 200 degrees and doesn't have the lid on right to a shaky elderly lady in her car is fairly negligent, as the court found. The bringing the temps down to get them in line with what is safe and the proper securing of lids has probably prevented quite a few serious burns, and it's actually a great example in case law of a seemingly frivolous case that had a real impact and helped prevent harm to ordinary people through a simple change of policies.
 
Promethean said:
It isn't about keeping it hot forever, it is about extraction method. The size of the grind, the temperature of the water, and the time that the two will be in contact with one another all coordinate in a fairly complicated equation to result in coffee which has the desired flavor profile. You can make coffee with cold water... it just takes hours for the flavor to develop and it will be a different beverage than hot brewed coffee. Every degree lower significantly alters the composition of the final product, especially if the other factors are held the same. This is a Le Chatlier's problem. If they are going to drop the temp, they have to recalibrate the size of the coffee grind, the amount of grounds used, and the amount of time that the coffee grounds and water will be together, or else the resulting product will be adversely affected.

If you are buying hot coffee, it will either be fresh and hot, or old and cold. There isn't a fresh and safe-temperature option. That is the inherent risk the consumer takes because of the nature of the product they want.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, something about your description tells me you've had coffee shop experience beyond being a customer? Or just a very strong passion for coffee/espresso!
 
PL198 said:
the oven thing will happen one day if tort reform doesn't happen. people accept less and less responsibility per day.
Click to expand...

How do you prevent the stupid torts while still compensating fairly for the legitimate ones? Not as simple as it sounds...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

penfish45
I'm about to begin med school... What would you have done differently?
Replies
8
Views
2K
mistafab
mistafab
MonsterGod
  • Question Question
Did you guys have to pay to publish a case report?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Goro
Goro
DRepsy
I’m a medical student and have been experimenting with different learning tools outside of traditional Anki decks.
Replies
2
Views
1K
clarkbar
C
J
Two Medical Leaves - Do I Have a Future?
Replies
5
Views
2K
pazzer2
P
C
  • Question Question
Should I go to a conference 3 days before Step 2
Replies
4
Views
556
operaman
O