During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    233
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s pretty screwed up how the media made light of this lawsuit.

    A lawsuit that ended in gross negligence, and the media shamed the lady involved for a decade.

      • SSX@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is ultimately why I hate capitalism.

        These corporations spend tons more money fighting against stuff than they do paying it out. The woman wanted her hospital bills paid, that was it. Instead, they go to town spending so much money with the intent to misinform and spread propaganda than just paying it.

        Many of these large employers do the same with unemployment cases and on-site work injuries. Spending more time and money doing fuck all than just paying it out like the greedy pigs they are.

        • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This has little to do with capitalism, capitalism doesn’t dictate that the more powerful smear the weaker into submission and autocracies around the world show that it doesn’t need capitalism for the powerful to suppress the weak. This was a failure of the justice system. They could’ve ordered McDonalds to spend as much money as they spent on smearing the lady to fully admit guilt and apologize. It is the justice system that failed.

          • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s literally capitalism. It’s not “smearing the weak”, it’s a company spending money to potentially save money later, regardless of the consequence to anyone else. That’s the point.

            Edit: lol I got blocked. Weak as piss.

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              TIL USSR was capitalist. /s.

              No, trying to do more with less is not capitalism. It’s material reality.

              It’s power being the only criterion, which means there’s no working fallback criterion. There should be at least one (which is where left libertarians are), or the structure of power should be different (which is where right libertarians are). Neither thing can be made fact to full extent, which is why we need both.

              Which is why I am a distributist.

            • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              And that still has nothing to do with capitalism. Unjustly exerting power happens under any system. It’s the justice system that allowed for this exertion of power to occur, if you want to blame anything, blame the weak laws protecting individuals against smear campaigns.

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A lot of people around here say “capitalism” when they mean something more like “the Kali Yūga”, “this fallen world, this vale of tears”, “the age in which the Tao is lost”, or “this age of muck and clay, in which we are lesser than our fathers of iron, who were lesser than their grandfathers of silver, who were lesser still than the ancients of gold.”

            The folks who speak this way, if you asked them, “Was there any wrongdoing in the world before the first stock certificate was issued?”, would say “Of course there was!”

            If you asked them, “Did pre-capitalist kings or judges ever favor the unjust over the just because the unjust gave them riches?”, they would say “Yes, they did!”

            If you asked them, “In ancient times, were there rich and well-fed tribes, and poor and starveling tribes, and did the richer tribes lord over the poorer ones?”, they would say “Certainly.”

            Which all goes to show, at some level they do know they’re not really talking about “capitalism” in the economic or historical sense. They’re not talking about an economic structure or a stage of Marxist history. They’re taking about wickedness, graft, injustice, abuse of power – things which are much, much older than capitalism.

            They’re merely using their favorite snarl word instead of just saying “evil”.

            • iain@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              But capitalism specifically favors the greedy and individualistic. It’s no surprise that if you base your society on capitalism, people will get more greedy.

              On top of that, capitalism enables some uniquely capitalistic evils, such as commodity fetishism and alienation.

              Also, some consider capitalism inherently unjust, making it an evil in its own right.

            • Quokka@quokk.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              And why do we blame capitalism instead of generic “evil”?

              Because capitalism is the system that actively promotes it and is in every facet of our lives.

              It’s greed not evil.

              Murdering a baby is evil, letting millions starve to death is business.

              • fubo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Okay, maybe you really do think kings and warlords were more virtuous than shareholders or CEOs. Alas, it was not that way. They were buttholes too. Buttholery is not controlled by the economic system of the day.

                • Quokka@quokk.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You seem to think that I wouldn’t also reject authoritarianism?

              • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Capitalism opens an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many, whereas any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy. At that point it becomes the same kind of discussion as the prohibition discussion. Do you ban it or do you allow and regulate it. Banning greed won’t make it go away, it will only force it into hiding and to undermine the current system. Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  an avenue for greed to be used for the benefit of the many

                  Wow, that’s some impressive horse shit! The very nature of greed means that it will always benefit the few over the many and the nature of capitalism is that greed is elevated to a virtue, inevitably hurting the many to serve the few rich and powerful.

                  any other form of resource distribution has no place for greed and as such no place for the greedy

                  First of all, that’s false. Pretty much every centrist and right wing structure of government centers the individual and thus caters to the greed of the individual over the needs of the many.

                  Besides, if that was true, that would be a good thing! Being greedy isn’t some inescapable natural urge that must be satisfied or you explode. Making space for the most base parts of human nature isn’t good with cruelty, deceitfulness or (except in the ordered and consensual context of sports and even that is a bit iffy in many cases) violent tendencies, so why do you want to nurture and protect greed?

                  Banning greed won’t make it go away

                  Sure, but just like the other vices I just mentioned, discouraging it and making it disadvantageous to act in a greedy manner will suppress and lessen its impact on society.

                  Capitalism forces greed to the surface, at which point people can have a discussion about how much greed should be permitted.

                  Yeah, that’s the same thing people said about right wing extremists when Trump emboldened them and look how that turned out…

                  Bottom line is that capitalism directly encourages greed and in doing so indirectly encourages cruel indifference towards the lives, health and happiness of anyone who stand in the way of greedy people and corporations. This lawsuit is 100% a symptom of how capitalism hurts people.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, and we still create laws to combat it. I don’t think “evil always existed, so let’s not have the FDA because it’s not that we’re protecting citizens from bad food, but simply from evil.”

              This is such a weird “I’m 14 and this is deep” take.

              • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Of course it needs laws to curtail the worst of the impacts capitalism has. Capitalism is a system that distributes a finite amount of resources between demand that outstrips supply. It doesn’t concern itself dishonest actors, that is what the judicial system is for. McDonalds was such a dishonest actor and that they got away with it is a failure of the judicial system.

                • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re confusing actual institutions with its philosophy.

                  Capitalism is also not the only system to distribute resources. Capitalism isn’t concerned with anything as it’s not an actual living thing. But to pretend that it doesn’t incentivize ruthlessness or greed is simply untrue.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It might not be a DIRECT result of capitalism, but guess what screwed up the “justice” system? Underregulated capitalism!

            It’s specifically designed to work for the rich and powerful and against everyone else, because that’s who make the laws and keep the lawmakers in somehow legal bribes.

            • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Capitalism didn’t screw up the justice system, the justice system failed to be impartial. It failed just as much in the USSR. Western european nations also have capitalism and they are far better off than the US is. It is not capitalism that is to blame that bribery is all but legal in the US.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thank you for having a brain in this thread.

            Only it’s the mass media system that failed rather. Which works in the way allowing to spend money on forming opinions with predictable outcomes. Which enables much worse things than dangerous customer service.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There’s no evidence to suggest that they paid to spread disinformation, that would be massively illegal and open them up to way more lawsuits. Ragebait has just always been popular.

    • Alien Surfer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s pretty scary how media can influence us so much, even when we think they aren’t, and even when we think “only dumb people fall for it.” No my friend, the majority fall for it. Not cause they’re dumb, but because they’ve scienced the hell out of human nature and know precisely how to do it right under our noses. It started with marketing and advertising that works well, unfortunately. They’ve cracked the psyche code. Media adopted it. Big tech improved it. Gah… this is turning into a rant about capitalism; I didn’t intend to go there. Eek.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We ALL fall for it, just not all the same things at the same time.

        That’s what’s so insidious. I’m sat here thinking “you rubes, I read into the details right away, and knew something was off about the story”. So then I have to ask myself, “ok, smartass, what are you falling for that you think you know”.

        Its just so damn insidious.

    • Sprokes@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I even was thinking if that episode from Seinfeld not just a scheme pulled by McDonald’s.

  • sbv@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    175
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The woman’s scalds were almost enough to kill her. She spent weeks in hospital and needed skin grafts. To make it worse, McDonald’s had received multiple complaints about the temperature of their coffee.

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      107
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Her lawsuit was just to help cover the medical expenses. McDonald’s didn’t want a precedence of being sued so their PR cooked up a narrative of greedy frivolous lawsuits and America bought this story hook line and sinker.

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        She even started out planning to accept the $800 oopsie poopsie money McDonald’s offered her until her family was like “um. No? You’ve gone from independent living senior to permanently disabled. You deserve for them to pay the full medical bills”

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      It fused her labia together. The coffee was so hot and the burns were so bad that her labia fused together.

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Step one: keep it on a hot plate that keeps it at 200° so that you can serve it longer

          That is all the steps

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is an additional step:

            • Serve it in a disposable container that doesn’t soak up any of the heat.

            Pouring hot coffee into a thick cold porcelain cup, tends to quickly cool it down to drinkable levels. A flimsy paper cup… not so much.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              And now imagine giving that to a person in a moving vehicle without a lid.

              There’s so much fucked up here it’s almost unbelievable. This is legitimately a bigger safety risk, after all is said and done, than many risks in an industrial chemical plant.

          • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            but water only goes to 100 degrees, even with other stuff dissolved i can’t imagine a water-based liquid going much higher than like 120 degrees at most…

            • shuzuko@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              200 Fahrenheit. That’s 93.3C. Just below literal boiling.

              Edit for more information, an adult human will suffer 3rd degree burns if exposed to 150F (65.5C) liquid for two seconds. This was 133% hotter than liquid that will cause 3rd degree burns. And it was poured directly in her lap, soaked into cloth that she could not easily remove. This was straight up evil levels of negligent.

              • Instigate@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                Just a quick note but neither Celsius nor Fahrenheit degrees can be used the way you’ve described - 200°F isn’t 133% of the temperature of 150°C and neither is 93.3°C 133% hotter than 65.5°C because the ‘zero’ point on both of those scales are entirely arbitrary.

                The two temperatures you’re talking about are ~366.45 K and ~338.65 K, as kelvin is the only true SI measurement for temperature whose zero point describes a natural or true zero, meaning that the higher temperature is roughly ~8% hotter.

                Brought to you by the National Department of Pedantry

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                To add on, even when something isn’t boiling, it’ll generate an appreciable amount of vapor. The boiling point is just the temperature at which bubbles form within the liquid. The top surface is still going to give off hot steam. I honestly don’t know if near boiling vs boiling is a meaningful distinction in terms of how dangerous it is.

                I wonder actually if a boiling liquid would be slightly safer because there’s more vapor and less liquid.

          • Nusm@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So if you get 3rd degree burns on your pelvic area and you go to the hospital, they should just tell you to stop being fragile?

            • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What? No, hot water is bad because people are fragile. I was being serious; this isn’t some jab, it’s just life

              • Nusm@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I misunderstood your post. It seemed like you were saying she was weak and fragile for getting burned. I read it as she should have “rubbed some dirt on it and walked it off”.

              • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t worry dude. I understood what you were saying. Not sure why so many people took it a weirs direction

    • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      They had a slush fund set up specifically to pay out settlements for coffee burns.

      They knew it was a problem, but decided it would be cheaper to pay off burn victims than to serve their coffee at a safe temperature.

  • ohlaph@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you dive into that case, you definitely side with the lady. She had some pretty serious burns, like way beyond what most of us would get if we spilled coffee that we made at the house.

    If my memory serves me well, she originally only asked them to cover the medical expenses. So their greed ended up costing them far more.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was used as the definitive “Frivolous Lawsuit”, but… in reality McDonalds just told Media Companies “Make us look like the victim here, or we’re pulling our precious advertising dollars.”

    • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      1 year ago

      The picture of that poor woman’s thighs is all you need to see to know this was not a frivolous suit

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also, McD’s had years of complaints from their own store managers that the coffee was too damn hot.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Important to note that the women initially just asked McDonald’s to pay for her treatment, and they told her to get fucked.

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just wish the victims lawyers had responded to those claims with the pictures of that poor woman’s third degree burns. she suffered horrifically and for years.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fortunately we have actually come aways since then, if a company tried that kind of stunt today, Not only would they be called out for it online, but they would also likely catch a second lawsuit for defamation.

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      And media did a bang-up job portraying the victim as a petulant child who is too dumb to drink coffee. Classic corporate Uno reverse card.

      • VinnieFarsheds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought this was indeed one of those ridiculous American lawsuits. Until I heard of the injuries later. No I would never wish this settlement money for myself if it included those injuries on that part of my body. Justice was served to the McD.

        • grayman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes… Melted labia is not something I was expecting. $2.7M seems too low of a punitive damage for the big arches clowns.

        • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more the fact that McD was aware that their coffee strategy was a ticking time bomb due to many complaints from staff and customers, but they didn’t fix it.

          IIRC the reason they heated the coffee that much in the first place was that it prolonged the time the coffee tasted fresh, so they didn’t have to make a fresh batch as often. Aka more profit.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The good news is the only way they’re able to get away with it was because the internet hadn’t caught on as much, and because this was before the media was afraid of catching defamation lawsuits.

  • Whorehoarder@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Must be one of the more successful smear campaigns in recent history. I’m not even from the us and we heard about that shit and used it as an example of greed and frivolous lawsuits. It was only like 5 years back I learned the truth. Believed that shit for 25 years…

    Edit: oops should’ve responded to the media part of thread

    • tslnox@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stop what? Brewing coffee with hot water?

      If they started waiting until it cools down there would be massive complaints that it takes them too long.

      • bemenaker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Serving as hot as they did. Try reading the legal case. It is common everywhere for there to be a maximum temp you are allowed to serve hot drinks at for this reason. The store was cited multiple times for serving over that limit.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve spilled freshly brewed coffee at home on myself, and I just needed to run my hand under the faucet for a bit and then clean up the mess.

        This woman needed skin grafts from third degree burns. Saying the coffee was too hot is an absolute understatement.

        • Blue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The other day I put my coffee(that I just made) in the fridge door and without thinking proceed to bend and try and grab the milk in the fridge’s door bottom, well I spilled that shit in my ear, neck and cheek, screamed like a motherfucker and ran to the shower.

          The area was red for a day or two and I used aloe vera, that Mctrash coffee was dangerous hot.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except for the YEARS of McD’s own managers complaining about the excessive temp and requesting to reduce it.

        It caused third degree burns. I’ve spilt half a pot of fresh food-service coffee on my arm and had both first and second-degree burns, but not third. You know, because food-service coffee makers all heat to the same temp, except for McD’s, which has their’s set much higher. (Go research why McD’s milkshake machines are always down, despite being the same machines everyone else uses).

        Having worked in many restaurants and some fast-food joints, they’re all the same, and don’t seem to have the supposed problem you claim.

  • meseek #2982@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh man there is so much to this case. First, she asked for like $40k, enough to cover the cost of the medical bills. To be clear, she received extensive burns as the coffee was so hot that it would burn in seconds (the wiki had a breakdown of the times/temps and they were illuminating). Moreover, it wasn’t even the hottest coffee available. Starbucks was serving much hotter coffee at the time (the hottest I think recorded). In the end, she got paid, but McDs never cooled their coffee (nor did anyone else), all they did was make better lids lol.

  • reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People love narratives that are simple and have an easy to understand moral to them even if they’re absolutely wrong. In this case, the narrative is that she asked for hot coffee and got hot coffee, and the moral is that people are greedy and stupid and you have to protect yourself from them. I’ve often found that one well-constructed point can blow these narratives up though. I was talking with my dad about this particular case, he’s a big “gotta do something about these frivolous lawsuits” guy because he used to own a business that was adjacent to real estate and real estate is probably the most litigated business in America. I’m a big “frivolous lawsuits is a term exploitative industries use to get people excited to give up their rights” guy, so we were at loggerheads about this one. Eventually I was like “Have you ever spilled coffee? When you did, who paid for your skin grafts?” Turns out that when crafting their narrative about how she was “suing them for giving her what she asked for”, the industry lobby left out the part where she had to spend 8 days in the hospital and have multiple reconstructive surgeries.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      And she only asked McDonalds to cover her medical bills. It was the jury who threw out her request and instead punished McDonalds with the huge settlement, because they were horrified by how grossly negligent the company had been and decided her request wasn’t a strong enough punishment.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t forget they had previously been ordered several times to reduce the temperature and refused.

    • Kethal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      They also left out the fact that this was not the first injury nor the first complaint and that McDonald’s knew their coffee was inappropriately hot. The majority of damages weren’t to because of medical costs, but we’re punative as punishment for knowingly serving a dangerous product. It was intended to make them change their practices. That didn’t happen though. McDonald’s had the amount reduced in appeals and continues to serve coffee that is hotter than almost anyone wants.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But, butt… if she spilled the coffee, then it’s on her for being clumsy… right? /s

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that someone actually was dumb enough to sue over coffee being hot was a punchline in the 90s and 2000s. It’s amazing what kind of misinformation can run amok in a world where you don’t have easy access to the internet and whatever corporate wants the spin to be, that’s what every Outlet is going to tell you.

            Thankfully proper research has revealed that news groups were strong armed by McDonald’s into leaving important details out to save their stock prices… and this version of the story is the one that’s catching on.

            I certainly hope that a better research clears up other misunderstandings ( the amount of people who actually believe Mother Teresa was a sadistic serial killer thanks to Christopher Hitchens riding the New Atheist wave of the early 2000’s with his easily debunked Hell’s Angel book is… way too high. The book claims among other things that she ran sham hospitals when in fact she ran hospices long before the concept was a thing in mainstream medicine and is credited for pioneering the concept of palliative care.)

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you want to defend Saint Teresa of Calcutta and how she funneled charity money to the Vatican while being unable to afford analgesics in her hospices, calling pain “Jesus’s kisses”, or defending child molesters and getting an exorcism to heal her heart attack while opposing both abortion and contraception, then you shouldn’t encourage people to do better research… which they can start with at:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You /s but someone in this very same conversation posted a comment above basically saying the same thing.

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sort by “top”, they’ll be below… *sigh* there’s always gotta be a reason to require the /s, ain’t it?

        • jarfil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why are you “asking”…? (there, edited, hope that helps the tokenizer 🙄)

          • reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            because I’d “like” to “know”. Some people use them to communicate dubiousness, some people use them to indicate they’re actually quoting someone, some “people” use them for emphasis.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Assume good faith unless proven otherwise”… should be a rule. Anyways, we good now?

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I once worked in a chain and spilled fresh brewed coffee on my arm. Looks half a pot. Got second degree burns.

      Company paid for my ER visit, naturally. No way in hell was our coffee as hot as McD’s, by a long shot. And I we still in pain for weeks.

  • yads@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t realize the reason was this petty. I always thought it had something to do with how many beans it took, or the time or something like that. Not that it just took longer for a customer to drink Beca they’d be burning their mouth. I’m glad she got what was owed to her. Poor woman.

    • Lemmy_at_it@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember hearing that it was based on market research that a significsnt number of people would pick up coffee on their way to work/home, and drink it once they got there. So they superheated the coffee so that it would be at its ideal taste/temperature when they got to their destination.

      But the refill thing sounds much more likely

      • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        They serve it that hot so that it’s less obvious when the coffee isn’t fresh. That way, you can save money by making fewer batches, and the people who are served old coffee won’t realize it until long after they left the drive-thru.

        • aelwero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They fuck you at the drive-thru, okay? They fuck you at the drive-thru! They know you’re gonna be miles away before you find out you got fucked! They know you’re not gonna turn around and go back, they don’t care. So who gets fucked? Ol’ Leo Getz! Okay, sure!

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah cuz mcds was losing millions on …checks notes…coffee in the 90s

  • DreamButt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fun fact. The guy who served her the cup of coffee is related to the owner of a Panera franchise that I use to work for. Both him and his brother-in-law (I think that’s how they were related) would talk about how that was their claim to fame back when they we’re franchising with McDonalds

  • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money.

    People aren’t understanding the coffee science here. Optimal brew temp is 195-205 degF.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584f6bbef5e23149e5522201/t/5d936fa1e29d4d5342049d74/1569943487417/Coffee+Standards-compressed.pdf

    Now it should be regulated that the coffee is required to cool to a certain temperature, probably 160, before they’re allowed to serve it. But coffee is supposed to be brewed at a dangerous temperature.

    • tslnox@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I was confused by this as well. The lady screwed up, coffee is hot by default.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Businesses are not allowed to sell “dangerous by default” products to their customers without a clear warning and sometimes even a signed waiver.

        Stuff like “don’t put cat in microwave”, and similar.