[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by jon1856

To see the similarities and differences between this case:


And the McDonald's coffee case:


Add to the above link:
http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Stella_Liebeck
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/...lla-liebe.html
Which includes this comment:
"Commenter cmdicely: the industry standard was to serve at a lower temperature
False: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.
According to a Sep. 1, 1994 Wall Street Journal interview with Reed Morgan, Liebeck's attorney, he measured the temperature at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald's, and "McDonald's was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings." Which means that, even before one accounts for conscious or unconscious bias in the measurements, at least three, and probably more (what about the other eleven McDonald's?), restaurants were serving coffee at a higher temperature. And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004).
Commenter Carl: I presume hundreds, if not thousands of people have been saved from severe burns from unreasonably hot coffee.
Commenter MSR: Go to your home coffee maker and make a cup; it will be at about 140 Fahrenheit.
False: To the extent that McDonald's and other restaurants lowered the temperature of their coffee, all it did was cost those institutions market share—people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald's, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald's served it to Stella Liebeck, recommending a temperature of 175 to 185 degrees. Starbucks faces suits over third-degree burns hot coffee cases (Jan. 2, 2004), and so does McDonald's Aug. 13). And, moreover, while in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees, today people can and do buy far more expensive and higher-quality coffeemakers that can serve coffee at the 190-to-200-degree temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at."

I've just never been able to accept the idea that anyone wants to drink coffee that's hot enough to actually burn your skin to the point of blisters.

And it seems like there'd be a difference in the temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at and the temperature that you'd expect to serve it to be consumed.

On some level when the news of the case broke, I thought the woman failed to use common sense simply because I had discovered for myself that McDonald's coffee was way too hot to ever be drunk right after you bought it.

But I reevaluated my opinion of the suit when I learned exactly how hot it was because it seemed unreasonable to sell coffee hot enough to burn that badly.

Maybe I need to reevaluate again.

(I'm trying to figure out why Starbucks doesn't seem equally as hot, and maybe it's just the better construction of the cups and the insulating sleeves, but I've never had the impression that Starbucks was as hot at McDonalds when I went to consume the beverage. )