On Jun 25, 1:15 am, Michael Press <
[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> > >>> SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around175
> > >>>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read onthe
> > >>>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> > >>>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> > >>>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> > >>>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
> > >>>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
> > >>>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degreesit
> > >>>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
> > >>> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
> > >>> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
> > >>> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
> > >> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
> > >> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
> > >> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
> > >> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.
>
> > > What you describe here is not what I did.
> > > The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.
>
> > The temperature of coffee falls rapidly between the boiling water poured
> > over the ground coffee and the holding vessel if the vessel isn't
> > insulated. By the time 212 degree water goes through the filter into the
> > vessel it will have fallen to less than 195 degrees, and 20 minutes
> > later it'll be under 180.
>
> In your home. Scale changes things. Your categorical statement is false.
> Do you know that the concrete pour of Boulder dam required cooling pipes
> inside the pour, else the time required to dissipate the heat of
> the hydration of the portland cement would be ~200 years?
Interesting point, but the bottom line is what a reasonable consumer
of coffee expects to get in the cup. The jury was probably given an
instruction to the effect that the cup of coffee was defective if they
found that it was dangerous to an exent beyond that contemplated by
the ordiniary consumer of coffee. The jury could conclude that the cup
of coffee was defective because the coffee was too hot (as evidenced
by the average temperature of other take out coffee in the area -- or
even home pots), because the cup was not rigid enough, because the lid
was not secure -- who knows. The verdict may not have been based on
the temperature of the coffee alone.
If a properly designed and manufactured cup of coffee is capable of
causing harm if used in a foreseeable manner, then there is a duty to
warn -- assuming it is possible to have a sufficient warning being
that people don't generally read their cups. McDonalds probably
concluded that a warning was not feasible, and it simply turned down
the thermostat on its coffee makers. So, the average consumer now
gets what he or she expects -- average hot coffee. That is certainly
a bummer for the hot coffee set -- and illustrate the unfortunate
leveling effect of the product liability law.
Also note that in "consumer expectation" states like Oregon, there is
no strict liability for obviously dangerous products. A consumer does
not expect that a whirling, unguarded blade will be safe -- so prop-
strike cases are hard to prove. I actually represented a number of
distilled spirits/beer brewers in a case brought by a prison inmate
who claimed his life was ruined by alcohol. No liability. Everyone
knows that well-made booze can ruin your life. Some states (like
California) use a "risk-utility" test, and the outcome can be
different under that test where the product is obviously danagerous
and has a low utility.
Now, plaintiffs can always pursue straight negligence claims (and not
strict products liability), but those are hard to prove because, for
example, a reasonable coffee seller may choose to sell really hot
coffee because it appeals to a certain market -- or because the
aromatics are released above 175 degrees or for some other good
reason. On the other hand, the evidence may be that no fool in his or
her right mind would sell 180 degree coffee in a paper cup. This is
where experts come in (among other places). God knows what the
evidence was in the McDonalds case. There was certainly enough
evidence to get the case to the jury (or else the trial judge would
have granted a directed verdict). Once it gets to the jury, they do
what they do -- usually based on the law, but sometimes based on a lot
of other things. -- Jay Beattie.
