61–70 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hot coffee lawsuit is the first thing I think of here. Heck even the name is like… whew.
Sorry, I really couldn't tell what side you're arguing for here. But the hot coffee lawsuit was a good example of something that seemed crazy on first look, when on further examination... it still seemed crazy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hot coffee lawsuit is the first thing I think of here. Heck even the name is like… whew.
I guess "the dangerously hot coffee that fused a customer's labia" does not have the same punch when trying to argue for tort reform.
Additionally - the detail often left out of all the armchair analysis is the customer placed the fresh cup of coffee between her legs while in her car, and removed the lid. Her legs crushed the now-unstable cup... and she was unsurprisingly burned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a myth within a myth. The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) The lawsuit was justified though, because the cup design was defective. It shouldn't have collapsed like it did.
That doesn't seem to match what's in wikipedia: > Liebeck's attorneys 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. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. Reading th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess "the dangerously hot coffee that fused a customer's labia" does not have the same punch when trying to argue for tort reform.
For reference, your Keurig pours coffee into your cup at 192*F. McDonald's coffee wasn't even this hot when that lawsuit happen. Additionally - the detail often left out of all the armchair analysis is the customer placed the fresh cup of coffee between her legs while in her car, and removed the lid. Her legs crushed the now-unstable cup... and she was unsurprisingly burned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a myth within a myth. The coffee was industry standard temperature, they still serve coffee that hot today (Wikipedia says as much.) The lawsuit was justified though, because the cup design was defective. It shouldn't have collapsed like it did.
That doesn't seem to match what's in wikipedia: > Liebeck's attorneys 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. The attorneys presented evidence that coffee they had tested all over the city was served at a temperature at least 20 °F (11 °C) lower than McDonald's coffee. Reading th…
And no, there is no coffee professional (organization, individual, whatever) brewing coffee at 140*F.
Additionally - 140*F water is still going to burn if you spill it all over your clothing. Lastly, the customer removed the lid of the coffee while between her legs, which is how the cup was crushed and coffee ran all over her.
The case was absurd...
The so-called "real" explanation of the $600 hammer doesn't make the story any better. The hammer did indeed cost $435. If the government wanted to buy another one, the contractor would have charged them an extra $435. Just because the extra $420 was "R&D expense" for something else, doesn't make the hammer any cheaper. Even in the most charitable explanation, this makes it impossible to know the real cost of anythin…
> If the government wanted to buy another one, the contractor would have charged them an extra $435. This claim appears to contradict what the story says, as far as I can tell? He's the original: > The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the government wanted to buy another one, the contractor would have charged them an extra $435. This claim appears to contradict what the story says, as far as I can tell? He's the original: > The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a b…
I acknowledged in my comment that even if the most charitable explanation was assumed, the method of accounting is misleading and makes determining the cost of anything impossible.
> The new moral is that numbers, taken as self-explanatory truths by the public and the press, can in fact be the woefully distorted products of a broken accounting system.
So it appears you're just in agreement with the OP that the accounting system is broken, while also being the exact same sort of victim of misunderstanding that the broken accounting fosters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reference, your Keurig pours coffee into your cup at 192*F. McDonald's coffee wasn't even this hot when that lawsuit happen. Additionally - the detail often left out of all the armchair analysis is the customer placed the fresh cup of coffee between her legs while in her car, and removed the lid. Her legs crushed the now-unstable cup... and she was unsurprisingly burned.
Yes, the kitchen has many hazards that are not expected in a drive-through restaurant, and your point about how she held the coffee is presumably why the jury found the plaintiff 20% liable rather than 0%.
Any temperature above 100*F is going to burn. There is no safe temperature above 100*F that is not going to cause 2nd and 3rd degree burns.
The "myth" is quite real, e.g. the $1,000+ coffee cup [1] https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/10/22...
This is not a conventional coffee cup. It is a cup that plugs into the electrical outputs on a military airplane. The more that the DoD stands up 3d printing, the less these kind of things will be an issue, particularly once they start doing more 3d printing in metal.
[flagged]