Is this a "frivious" lawsuit injury?

[sangha]

Well.. Start naming the mistatements of fact.. Otherwise you are just making yourself look like a fool..

I did read the links you put.. I read them before you posted them and also posted the wikipedia one before you did.. Guess you weren't paying attention..

Still the fact remains.. You haven't said or done anything that can show a logical or viable reason as to why Mcdonald's is responsible.. Not that you can..

The car wasn't moving
The lid wasn't off
She wasn't adding condiments when the spill occurred
The coffee was not safe

 

[Belgarath]

The car wasn't moving
The lid wasn't off
She wasn't adding condiments when the spill occurred
The coffee was not safe

The car was indeed not moving- her son (or nephew, I forget which) had parked the car.
She was pulling the lid off.
She was planning to add condiments- that was the purpose for removing the lid.
Perhaps the problem wasn't that the coffee wasn't safe, but that the lid wasn't safe? Perhaps McDonald's needs to make lids that are easier to remove?

 

[sangha]

The car was indeed not moving- her son (or nephew, I forget which) had parked the car.
She was pulling the lid off.
She was planning to add condiments- that was the purpose for removing the lid.
Perhaps the problem wasn't that the coffee wasn't safe, but that the lid wasn't safe? Perhaps McDonald's needs to make lids that are easier to remove?

The lid and the cup were unsafe. McD's has since changed over to safer cups and lids, and now they put the creamer and sugar in for the customer and serve the coffee at a lower temp

 

[Psychoclown]

The extent of the woman's injury and graphic pictures of them are only relevant if McDonald's was somehow responsible for them. McDonalds didn't pour steaming hot coffee on her lap, so you have to make a case that product was defective or had some sort of hidden danger the woman wasn't aware of. I see two main arguments supporters of this verdict are using ...

1)The coffee was too hot.

Obviously the woman had no expectation that the coffee wouldn't be hot. I'm sure if McDonald's served her a cup of lukewarm coffee, she would've complained (and rightly so). So it's unquestionable that she knew, "hey if I spill this stuff on me, it's gonna hurt like hell!" So only argument you can make about the coffee temperature is that it was at some ridiculously high temperature above any reasonable expectation.

I don't drink coffee. I think it tastes like crap, so I have no idea what temperature it should be served at. So I did a quick google search for "what temperature should coffee be served at". The first link was to a page for the National Coffee Association.

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association

So if McDonald's was maintaining its coffee around 180 to 190 degrees, it was pretty much within the guidelines of the National Coffee Association. I don't see anything wrong with McDonald's coffee temperature based on the above source.

Also, the Burn Foundation says that much lower temperatures can cause third degree burns quite quickly.

...in 1 second at 156º
…in 2 seconds at 149º
…in 5 seconds at 140º
…in 15 seconds at 133º.

The Burn Foundation - www.burnfoundation.org - Scald Burns

So even if the coffee had been thirty or forty degrees cooler (and well below the optimal serving temperature for coffee), the woman probably would've still suffered severe burns.

So I don't believe McDonald's temperature policy on their coffee was negligent. Nor did the woman have a reasonable expectation that the coffee between her legs did not represent a potentially severe injury if she spilled it on herself.

2) The lid was defective.

I think the numbers here speak for themselves. From 1982 to 1992 McDonalds received 700 complaints of injury due to coffee. According a blog I found that reprinted an article from the Seattle Intelligencer originally written in 1995 by Nicholas Corning, an expert testified for McDonalds that they do sell a billion cups of coffee a year. So over a ten year period, that would be a 10 billion cups of coffee and only 700 complaints of injury.

Legal Reform and the McDonalds Coffee Case Adler Giersch

If the lid and/or cup was somehow defective, I think its reasonable to assume we’d see a much larger ratio of complaints/coffee sold. The complaint rate is statistically insignificant. I’m willing to chalk up the such a tiny rate of complaints to the fact that sometimes people are klutzes.

We don't live in a nerf world. It's not other people's job to completely minimize the risk that something unpleasant might happen to you. Some things are potentially dangerous or harmful and when you buy them, you accept the risk entailed.

Frivolous lawsuits have a huge cost to society. Those huge punative verdicts juries hand out are ultimately paid for by the consumer. And causes companies to be less willing to provide certain services or products. When is the last time you saw a jungle gymn or a see saw at a playground? They used to be everywhere when I was a kid, but I never see one when I take my nieces to the park.

 

[sangha]

I just love when people repeat the same tired old arguments that have already been debunked in the very thread they post them in

 

[roguenuke]

I just love when people repeat the same tired old arguments that have already been debunked in the very thread they post them in

Except, they haven't been debunked. People have brought up some faulty claims from the trial which were in fact later debunked, such as the fact that coffee at temperatures between 155F and 180F (which is about the normal range for serving coffee can cause severe 2nd and 3rd degree burns within 5 sec or less, not 20 as the woman's lawyer and his expert wrongly claimed.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Stella Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds.[16])

This clashes with what the burn foundation states and even the reason that most people are told to lower their water temp below 120F.

The Burn Foundation - www.burnfoundation.org - Scald Burns

It also clashes with the fact that very few, if any restaurants serve their coffee below 155F, let alone 140F, which is what the lawyer was saying McDs should have been serving their coffee at. Many serve and did serve their coffee at around 170F, and the difference between burns at 170 and 180 (which is where her lawyer claimed the coffee was served at), when it comes to severity of burns caused if the coffee is spilled on someone.

I don't know if McDs was serving coffee in cups that were unsafe, but I don't believe that this case had anything to do with the lid being defective, since she admitted to being in the process of taking off the lid when she was burned. Most of the case was not based on the lid issue though, but rather the temperature of the coffee and incomplete and sometimes wrong information about what temperatures can cause what type of burns how fast and what temperatures coffee is normally served at.

I have personally seen someone who was burned on our ship because a couple of the guys thought it would be funny to pour a bucket of hot water (from the hottest setting of our showers, around maybe 130-140F) on him while he was taking a shower. From that water being poured on his naked body (no clothes to hold the water/heat against his skin), he received 2nd degree burns to his arms, shoulders and back. The contact could not have been longer than a second or two.

 

[sangha]

Except, they haven't been debunked. People have brought up some faulty claims from the trial which were in fact later debunked, such as the fact that coffee at temperatures between 155F and 180F (which is about the normal range for serving coffee can cause severe 2nd and 3rd degree burns within 5 sec or less, not 20 as the woman's lawyer and his expert wrongly claimed.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This clashes with what the burn foundation states and even the reason that most people are told to lower their water temp below 120F.

The Burn Foundation - www.burnfoundation.org - Scald Burns

It also clashes with the fact that very few, if any restaurants serve their coffee below 155F, let alone 140F, which is what the lawyer was saying McDs should have been serving their coffee at. Many serve and did serve their coffee at around 170F, and the difference between burns at 170 and 180 (which is where her lawyer claimed the coffee was served at), when it comes to severity of burns caused if the coffee is spilled on someone.

I don't know if McDs was serving coffee in cups that were unsafe, but I don't believe that this case had anything to do with the lid being defective, since she admitted to being in the process of taking off the lid when she was burned. Most of the case was not based on the lid issue though, but rather the temperature of the coffee and incomplete and sometimes wrong information about what temperatures can cause what type of burns how fast and what temperatures coffee is normally served at.

I have personally seen someone who was burned on our ship because a couple of the guys thought it would be funny to pour a bucket of hot water (from the hottest setting of our showers, around maybe 130-140F) on him while he was taking a shower. From that water being poured on his naked body (no clothes to hold the water/heat against his skin), he received 2nd degree burns to his arms, shoulders and back. The contact could not have been longer than a second or two.

No, you are mistating the facts. The issue isn't how long it takes to get a 3rd degree burn from 155 degree coffee. McDs kept their coffee at 180 or above. And it doesn't matter what the burn foundation says about coffee at 170 temp because, again, McD kept their coffee at 180 or above

 

[Tucker Case]

McDonald's fault was in assuming that it's customers were not morons. That was a huge mistake on their part. When you serve an extremely hot beverage to morons in vehicles, you have to operate under the assumption that these morons will eventually do something stupid with said beverage, and that they will end up spilling said beverage upon themselves.

Knowing that they were serving their coffee above 180º, they should have been aware of the effects that a liquid of this temperature would have on the bodies of the aforementioned morons since it is a given that these morons will eventually spill the beverage upon themselves.

Sometimes liability is simply a lack of foresight about the morons that you will be serving. Now, can you stop a moron from being a moron? Not at all. But you can take steps to assure that that moron's actions do not come back to haunt you.

"Warning: Contents extremely hot and may cause severe burns. Please be careful, and don't drink while driving"

That simple warning printed on the cups allows the morons to be fully culpable for their own stupidity, regardless of what temperature you serve the coffee at.

Cynical foresight helps prevent you from being sued.

 

[sangha]

McDonald's fault was in assuming that it's customers were not morons. That was a huge mistake on their part.

Avg intelligence is defined as an IQ of 100. That's not very smart. Now remember that half the population falls below that.

There's a whole lot of morons out there

 

[The Barbarian]

I thought it was a million cups/year. Now it's 10 billion? That would take 10,000 years

You obviously don't know the facts

you're right she doesn't know her fact ..... and neither do you .. . here are the "facts" When McDonald’s introduced its Premium Roast coffee in 2006, it was selling 500 million cups of coffee a day in the U.S. alone...... now if I do my math right ... that comes out to over 1.8 trillion cups of coffee in a ten year span

If they had 700 cases, then by percentage ... it's basically for all practical reasoning .. 0%

 

[The Barbarian]

you're right she doesn't know her fact ..... and neither do you .. . here are the "facts" When McDonald’s introduced its Premium Roast coffee in 2006, it was selling 500 million cups of coffee a day in the U.S. alone...... now if I do my math right ... that comes out to over 1.8 trillion cups of coffee in a ten year span

If they had 700 cases, then by percentage ... it's basically for all practical reasoning .. 0%

I thought it was a million cups/year. Now it's 10 billion? That would take 10,000 years

You obviously don't know the facts

McDonald’s coffee in the U.S.

This site says they sell 500m cups per day ..... that comes out ot 1.8 trillion cups in a ten year span

How many cups of coffee does McDonald's sell in a day

this site says 10m cups per day ..... that comes out to 36.5 billion in a ten year span.

either way ... 700 cases ...is nothing .. giving any reasonable thinking person a 0% rate of accidents to number of cups sold

 

[Black Dog]

McDonald's fault was in assuming that it's customers were not morons. That was a huge mistake on their part. When you serve an extremely hot beverage to morons in vehicles, you have to operate under the assumption that these morons will eventually do something stupid with said beverage, and that they will end up spilling said beverage upon themselves.

Knowing that they were serving their coffee above 180º, they should have been aware of the effects that a liquid of this temperature would have on the bodies of the aforementioned morons since it is a given that these morons will eventually spill the beverage upon themselves.

Sometimes liability is simply a lack of foresight about the morons that you will be serving. Now, can you stop a moron from being a moron? Not at all. But you can take steps to assure that that moron's actions do not come back to haunt you.

"Warning: Contents extremely hot and may cause severe burns. Please be careful, and don't drink while driving"

That simple warning printed on the cups allows the morons to be fully culpable for their own stupidity, regardless of what temperature you serve the coffee at.

Cynical foresight helps prevent you from being sued.

You don't have to be a "moron" to accidentally spill something on yourself. It happens and if you are serving items through a drive through, it can and will happen. Has nothing to do with being a "moron."

They knew it was to hot, period.

 

[Alyssa]

:roll: It's sad that everything these days needs to be idiot proof. So now the rest of us can't even drink hot coffee?

McDonald's coffee was exactly the temperature it needed to be.

Someone else posted this already, but it needs to be posted again:

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.

Imagine that-hot coffee.

 

[jamesrage]

The extent of the woman's injury and graphic pictures of them are only relevant if McDonald's was somehow responsible for them. McDonalds didn't pour steaming hot coffee on her lap, so you have to make a case that product was defective or had some sort of hidden danger the woman wasn't aware of. I see two main arguments supporters of this verdict are using ...

1)The coffee was too hot.

Obviously the woman had no expectation that the coffee wouldn't be hot. I'm sure if McDonald's served her a cup of lukewarm coffee, she would've complained (and rightly so). So it's unquestionable that she knew, "hey if I spill this stuff on me, it's gonna hurt like hell!" So only argument you can make about the coffee temperature is that it was at some ridiculously high temperature above any reasonable expectation.

I don't drink coffee. I think it tastes like crap, so I have no idea what temperature it should be served at. So I did a quick google search for "what temperature should coffee be served at". The first link was to a page for the National Coffee Association.





How To Brew Coffee - National Coffee Association

So if McDonald's was maintaining its coffee around 180 to 190 degrees, it was pretty much within the guidelines of the National Coffee Association. I don't see anything wrong with McDonald's coffee temperature based on the above source.

Also, the Burn Foundation says that much lower temperatures can cause third degree burns quite quickly.



The Burn Foundation - www.burnfoundation.org - Scald Burns

So even if the coffee had been thirty or forty degrees cooler (and well below the optimal serving temperature for coffee), the woman probably would've still suffered severe burns.

So I don't believe McDonald's temperature policy on their coffee was negligent. Nor did the woman have a reasonable expectation that the coffee between her legs did not represent a potentially severe injury if she spilled it on herself.

2) The lid was defective.

I think the numbers here speak for themselves. From 1982 to 1992 McDonalds received 700 complaints of injury due to coffee. According a blog I found that reprinted an article from the Seattle Intelligencer originally written in 1995 by Nicholas Corning, an expert testified for McDonalds that they do sell a billion cups of coffee a year. So over a ten year period, that would be a 10 billion cups of coffee and only 700 complaints of injury.

Legal Reform and the McDonalds Coffee Case Adler Giersch

If the lid and/or cup was somehow defective, I think its reasonable to assume we’d see a much larger ratio of complaints/coffee sold. The complaint rate is statistically insignificant. I’m willing to chalk up the such a tiny rate of complaints to the fact that sometimes people are klutzes.

We don't live in a nerf world. It's not other people's job to completely minimize the risk that something unpleasant might happen to you. Some things are potentially dangerous or harmful and when you buy them, you accept the risk entailed.

Frivolous lawsuits have a huge cost to society. Those huge punative verdicts juries hand out are ultimately paid for by the consumer. And causes companies to be less willing to provide certain services or products. When is the last time you saw a jungle gymn or a see saw at a playground? They used to be everywhere when I was a kid, but I never see one when I take my nieces to the park.

You can't win the pro- frivolous lawsuit crowd with facts. They have been ignoring facts for the past 20 something pages.

 

[jamesrage]

You don't have to be a "moron" to accidentally spill something on yourself..

You would however have to be a moron to put a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but proceed to try to remove the lid while this cup of hot liquid in between your legs.

It happens and if you are serving items through a drive through, it can and will happen. Has nothing to do with being a "moron."

700 spills over a ten year period with billions of cups of coffee served says otherwise. Sure an employee might have tripped and spilled coffee on themselves or while someone was getting their cup of coffee someone behind them bumped into to them cause their coffee to spill. How ever these accidents are rare.

They knew it was to hot, period

So did anyone ordering the coffee because coffee is supposed to be hot. Unless it is a iced coffee which McDonalds did not have back then.

 

[Crosscheck]

You don't have to be a "moron" to accidentally spill something on yourself. It happens and if you are serving items through a drive through, it can and will happen. Has nothing to do with being a "moron."

They knew it was to hot, period.

No, she was a moron. We seem to have a bumper cross of morons across this country.

That is why there is a warning on a baby stroller to remove the infant before collapsing the stroller. It is a wonder we don't have a warning on pistols to point the barrel away from your face when shooting.

If a moron does anything stupid, we reward them. Keeping that gene pool alive.

 

[Black Dog]

You would however have to be a moron to put a cup of hot liquid in between your legs and not only that but proceed to try to remove the lid while this cup of hot liquid in between your legs.

Considering people probably do it all the time with coffee etc, I doubt it. I am certain everyone here has done something stupid. This does not make you a moron. It is just a stupid blanket statement, period.

So if we use your standard of judging everyone on the planet is a moron including you.

700 spills over a ten year period with billions of cups of coffee served says otherwise. Sure an employee might have tripped and spilled coffee on themselves or while someone was getting their cup of coffee someone behind them bumped into to them cause their coffee to spill. How ever these accidents are rare.

The odds are at this point meaningless. I mean what are the odds life would spring out of nothing on this planet? So 700 out of billions now days means little.

So did anyone ordering the coffee because coffee is supposed to be hot. Unless it is a iced coffee which McDonalds did not have back then.

Hot is one thing and as the trial pointed out (which you ignore and take the advice of a web site designed to protect company form coffee spill lawsuit's) the coffee was not just "hot" it was dangerously hot. Hence the rules change at McDonald's.

 

[Black Dog]

No, she was a moron. We seem to have a bumper cross of morons across this country.

That is why there is a warning on a baby stroller to remove the infant before collapsing the stroller. It is a wonder we don't have a warning on pistols to point the barrel away from your face when shooting.

If a moron does anything stupid, we reward them. Keeping that gene pool alive.

Well welcome to the moron club. Unless you are going to lie and say you have never done anything stupid?

What really cracks me up is you are going to sit there and call a person you know nothing about except she spilled some coffee, sued the company and WON is a moron. The irony is killing me.

 

[Crosscheck]

Well welcome to the moron club. Unless you are going to lie and say you have never done anything stupid?

I sure as hell didn't try to sue anybody for my moronic endeavor. I chalked it up as my stupid moment and not try to make others compensate for my lack of judgement.


America, where every kid on the little league team gets a trophy and nobody has to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Black Dog]

I sure as hell didn't try to sue anybody for my moronic endeavor. I chalked it up as my stupid moment and not try to make others compensate for my lack of judgement.

Irrelevant to your statement.

America, where every kid on the little league team gets a trophy and nobody has to take responsibility for their own actions.

I agree but one has NOTHING to do with the other. This also makes your statement no less ironic or an uninformed blanket statement.

 

[jamesrage]

Considering people probably do it all the time with coffee etc, I doubt it. I am certain everyone here has done something stupid. This does not make you a moron. It is just a stupid blanket statement, period.

So if we use your standard of judging everyone on the planet is a moron including you.



The odds are at this point meaningless. I mean what are the odds life would spring out of nothing on this planet? So 700 out of billions now days means little.

I have never placed a cup of hot liquid in between my legs.

Hot is one thing and as the trial pointed out (which you ignore and take the advice of a web site designed to protect company form coffee spill lawsuit's) the coffee was not just "hot" it was dangerously hot. Hence the rules change at McDonald's.

And I have pointed out numerous times from a coffee brewer manufacture website as well as a coffee lovers site that say that the optimum serving temperature is around 155-185(190-205 if you consider the fact the coffee lovers website said to serve immediately after brewing). The website which all accuse of being designed to protect companies from coffee spill lawsuits only confirm what the coffee brewer manufacture and the coffee lovers site say. which is what the serving temperature of coffee is. Maybe you can find a unbiased website to state what temperatures restaurants and fast food places serve their coffee at.

 

[Mustachio]

I have never placed a cup of hot liquid in between my legs.



And I have pointed out numerous times from a coffee brewer manufacture website as well as a coffee lovers site that say that the optimum serving temperature is around 155-185(190-205 if you consider the fact the coffee lovers website said to serve immediately after brewing). The website which all accuse of being designed to protect companies from coffee spill lawsuits only confirm what the coffee brewer manufacture and the coffee lovers site say. which is what the serving temperature of coffee is. Maybe you can find a unbiased website to state what temperatures restaurants and fast food places serve their coffee at.

I worked as a barista for many years. 160 degrees is considered optimum serving temp. for a latte and let me tell you, that is very hot. Brewing coffee at 200 degrees doesn't mean you serve coffee at 200 degrees. The second the coffee hits the pot it lowers in temperature. Where I worked, when you served a hot cocoa to kids, you knew you had to serve it around 100 degrees or else you were endangering them. McDonalds handed out coffee at 190 degrees knowing that people would be rushing to work and haphazardly putting cream and sugar in their coffee. Not at all a frivolous lawsuit. Just something that was going to happen eventually.

 

[DemonMyst]

I worked as a barista for many years. 160 degrees is considered optimum serving temp. for a latte and let me tell you, that is very hot. Brewing coffee at 200 degrees doesn't mean you serve coffee at 200 degrees. The second the coffee hits the pot it lowers in temperature. Where I worked, when you served a hot cocoa to kids, you knew you had to serve it around 100 degrees or else you were endangering them. McDonalds handed out coffee at 190 degrees knowing that people would be rushing to work and haphazardly putting cream and sugar in their coffee. Not at all a frivolous lawsuit. Just something that was going to happen eventually.

How much did your drip machines brew coffee at and what temp did they store it at?? I guarantee you it wasn't 160 degrees.. You are talking apples and oranges when you compare say a latte and a McDonald's drip which sits in a carafe for lord knows how long at who knows what temp??

Doing a test here at home.. My home coffee maker stores coffee at 180.. Again.. Just drip..

Also, McDonalds didn't hand the coffee out knowing people would be adding cream.. Most people order their coffee with cream or sugar.. McDonalds does do that you know.. For the simple fact of not having to attempt to do it in your car.. My mom ordered it that way for years when I was growing up as a kid.. We are talking in the 70's.. Yes in the 70's, McDonalds would add cream or surgar to your coffee for you.. The fact that she didn't order it that way was her own damn fault.. The fact that she attempted to do it in the car was her own damn fault.. It was a frivolous laws suit and there is not arguement otherwise.. Even your own post shows that..

You can't compare a latte to drip.. You also neglected the simple fact that she could have ordered her coffee with her condiments already mixed in.. The fact that she chose to do it herself is her choice.. The fact that she attempted it in her care was again her choice..

This case is nothing but frivolous!!

 

[Psychoclown]

McDonald's fault was in assuming that it's customers were not morons. That was a huge mistake on their part. When you serve an extremely hot beverage to morons in vehicles, you have to operate under the assumption that these morons will eventually do something stupid with said beverage, and that they will end up spilling said beverage upon themselves.

Knowing that they were serving their coffee above 180º, they should have been aware of the effects that a liquid of this temperature would have on the bodies of the aforementioned morons since it is a given that these morons will eventually spill the beverage upon themselves.

Sometimes liability is simply a lack of foresight about the morons that you will be serving. Now, can you stop a moron from being a moron? Not at all. But you can take steps to assure that that moron's actions do not come back to haunt you.

"Warning: Contents extremely hot and may cause severe burns. Please be careful, and don't drink while driving"

That simple warning printed on the cups allows the morons to be fully culpable for their own stupidity, regardless of what temperature you serve the coffee at.

Cynical foresight helps prevent you from being sued.

Cynical foreight is good business in today's common sense free, I hold no responsibility for my own actions so I should sue someone the instant something unfortunate happens to me society. But I find that fact to be an unfortunate commentary on our society and would like to see it change. And I'd like to see judges, juries, and law makers help bring about that change by rejecting frivolous claims and making it harder to file such frivolous claims. I'm probably naive in hoping for this kind of change. It would be a marked reversal from the direction we've been sliding towards for decades now. Perhaps I need more cynical foresight.

 

[sangha]

:roll: It's sad that everything these days needs to be idiot proof. So now the rest of us can't even drink hot coffee?

McDonald's coffee was exactly the temperature it needed to be.

Someone else posted this already, but it needs to be posted again:

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee. If you are brewing the coffee manually, let the water come to a full boil, but do not overboil. Turn off the heat source and allow the water to rest a minute before pouring it over the grounds.

Imagine that-hot coffee.

Gee, an industry funded group defending one of its' biggest customers. Imagine that!!