remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1795746:date=Aug 22 2010, 07:00 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Aug 22 2010, 07:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795746"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And yes, age verification things are incredibly useless, especially since most of them will let you retry if you get a "no" after entering an age that's too young.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The ones that don't let you retry are awful from a HCI perspective... Humans are not flawless and the design should allow for slip-ups.
I know I have accidentally put in wrong years before that put below whatever age is required (18/13). It happens, but even though I really am over the age, many don't let me reenter with the correct date without deleting cookies and all sorts of hassle.
GISPBattle GorgeDenmarkJoin Date: 2004-03-20Member: 27460Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Gold, Subnautica Playtester, Forum staff
Think people are missing the point, as the argument used in the case was that she didnt know that the cofee was hot. Anyways, US rewards stupidity, so companies must make all sorts of idiotic warnings like, dont "dry your pets in the microwave" labels and stuff like that.
<!--quoteo(post=1794705:date=Aug 17 2010, 07:25 AM:name=GISP)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GISP @ Aug 17 2010, 07:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1794705"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As the man said, its for em to cover there own asses, cos as we all know the Americans Sues companies for the most insane things...
<b>... Didnt know the cofee was hot, its McD´s foult i burned myself! - Woman won and is now a millionare - result, coffe mugs are now labeled whit "hot stuff" inside at 7/11, McD and other places that sells to-go warm drinks.</b>
...Woman sues cigarate companies for getting cancer, becouse the warnings didnt mensure her by name. - result she lost, but it only shows that US citizens sues companies for everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's actually just an urban myth spread about the stupidity of McD's customers. The burn did happen, the customer did order extra hot coffee, but the coffee they gave her was so hot she got instant 3rd degree burns on contact when she spilled it. Totally the fault of the workers thinking "hey let's show this smartass customer", not to mention the standard practice of keeping their "regular" temperature coffee WAY hotter than it needed to be. You can read the case files online.
Edit: apparently like 10 other people commented on this too, oh well.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1795826:date=Aug 23 2010, 04:22 AM:name=Thief)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thief @ Aug 23 2010, 04:22 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795826"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's actually just an urban myth spread about the stupidity of McD's customers. The burn did happen, the customer did order extra hot coffee, but the coffee they gave her was so hot she got instant 3rd degree burns on contact when she spilled it. Totally the fault of the workers thinking "hey let's show this smartass customer", not to mention the standard practice of keeping their "regular" temperature coffee WAY hotter than it needed to be. You can read the case files online.
Edit: apparently like 10 other people commented on this too, oh well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though the case is more complicated than most people assume, I still think it's stupid.
The entire point is that this coffee was hotter than the woman (apparently) expected. But it's not like this coffee was superheated to a plasma state and nearly melted her legs off when she spilled it, it was actually (supposedly) cooler than the recommended brewing temperature of coffee. To clarify, no one is sure exactly how hot it was when she spilled it on her legs, but at the time, McDonalds policy was to brew/serve coffee at the drive-thru at 82-88c, which is hot. But the recommended brewing temperature for coffee is between 85-95c. So unless for some reason the coffee given to her was deliberately overheated in some way (which was never claimed, I might add; this possibility never came up in the case, the woman's lawyers used the 82-88c figure), the coffee she spilled on her lap was actually somewhat cooler than the coffee most people make themselves at home.
Her lawyers also claimed that the coffee served was "unusually hot" when compared to other coffee sold, <a href="http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/latest-hot-coffee-lawsuit-data-points/" target="_blank">despite the fact that places like starbucks and burger king have the same/higher temperature requirements.</a>
A similar case was tried in the UK, but was thrown out. <a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html" target="_blank">Some of the reasoning given:</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->32. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when hot drinks are spilled notwithstanding that they have been served in a lidded foam cup. A hot drink served at temperatures between 78.88 C and 90 C would cause a deep thickness burn if it spilled onto a visitor and was in contact with his skin for little more than a second. McDonald’s knew that there was a risk of injury of this sort if a hot drink was spilled. It follows, submits Mr. Horlock Q.C. for the claimants, that McDonald’s were negligent in serving hot drinks at the temperatures they did. 33. If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically the claim is that to get a good coffee, it has to be hot. And waiting for it to cool down so much before serving it, or brewing it at a lower temperature, would piss customers off because the coffee they got would be crap.
When you buy a coffee, you expect it to be hot. The fact that Stella Liebeck was badly burned by the coffee (she was 79, required skin grafts and 2 years of recovery) is not really McDonalds' fault imo; you expect a coffee to be dangerously hot when you handle it, unless you've somehow gone your entire life only drinking and coming into contact with a lukewarm coffee. It should also be noted that there was never any confusion as to whose fault the spill was; it was her fault. The entire case was based around the temperature of the coffee, not (for example) a poorly designed cup that made spillages inevitable.
The entire case is regarded as silly because of the whole "responsibility" thing. Like it or not, companies are not responsible for the misuse of their products. If, for example, you got some plastic cutlery from a restaurant and was messing around with some friends, pretending to stab and cut yourself, and then actually did damage yourself somehow, you would look like a complete idiot if you sued the company because you "didn't expect the cutlery to be so sharp" (cue someone linking me to a case where this exact thing happened). If you were walking through their store, slipped on an unmarked wet patch, and stabbed yourself in the stomach then yes, that's their fault. If you're at home and you trip up stabbing yourself no, it's not their fault.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Stick, the coffee was kept in pressurized urns, which maintained the temperature ABOVE 100C to better aerosolize/atomize the fragrant oils that give coffee its smell in the first place, to improve morning sales. Yes, you can expect coffee to be hot. No, normally it does not start out ABOVE boiling-hot when it is poured... time between the urn and being served to the drinker also tends to allow initial time to cool. So when you receive a 'normal' coffee, it tends not to be above 80C, tops, if not above 70C. Still hot enough to burn, but not flesh-melting, 'third degree burns in mere seconds' hot.
Also, just as a point of pedantism... the best coffee isn't made with boiling water. Destroys a number of those same aromatic oils when you get it quite that hot. 90-95C is the highest you should go when making a proper cuppa.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
edited August 2010
The coffee was not pressurised. <a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm" target="_blank">She put the cup between her knees and pulled the lid towards her to open it, spilling the coffee over her lap. It wasn't pressurised at all.</a>
McDonalds required their franchises to serve coffee at 82-88c. It could *not have been* over 100c when she had it. Note, again, that this was never actually claimed by her lawyers. They specifically and repeatedly cite the 82-88c figure (claiming that it shouldn't have even been over 60c).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (which is 82-88c).
At no point in the Stella Liebeck court case was the idea of the container being pressurised or otherwise poorly designed raised, by either side. Also at no point was the idea that the coffee was 100c or hotter raised. She spilled the coffee while holding it with her knees and removing the top, and it would've been, at most, 90c-ish.
Not a single one mentions either a pressurised cup, or a temperature of over 100c.
It's also worth noting that Stella wasn't given third degree burns "in a couple of seconds". She was wearing sweat pants that absorbed the coffee and by her own admission was sitting in the puddle for 90 seconds.
Also to respond to be pedantic in reply to more pendantic...ness, from the thing I quoted in my post:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and <b>coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT
Also I'm probably misreading this or something, but you're claiming that McDonalds kept the coffee at over 100c to make the coffee smell nice, but then say that brewing coffee over 100c destroys the things that make it smell?
No, they lose taste but gain smell from the high temp. Also from what I understood the pressure was on before serving, not in the cup itself, though I dunno how that's relevant to the accident.
The problem with this case is that it was decided by a jury. When you are a large corporation like McDonald's there is no such thing as a jury of your peers, unless they fill it with executives from other multi-billion dollar corporations, but that is not going to happen.
Unfortunately when it comes between an injured old lady and a big faceless corporation that can stand to lose a few mullion dollars, depending on who gets on the jury, the rest of the facts do not matter.
This case is viewed as a massive failure of the US legal system by everyone I know.
<!--quoteo(post=1795944:date=Aug 23 2010, 11:20 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 23 2010, 11:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795944"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This case is viewed as a massive failure of the US legal system by everyone I know.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to mention it triggered a whole slew of anti-corporate lawsuits for random stuff.
<!--quoteo(post=1795944:date=Aug 23 2010, 08:20 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Aug 23 2010, 08:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795944"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with this case is that it was decided by a jury. When you are a large corporation like McDonald's there is no such thing as a jury of your peers, unless they fill it with executives from other multi-billion dollar corporations, but that is not going to happen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh man, can you imagine Dow Chemical being judged by a jury of its peers?
"In conclusion, your honour, by unanimous decision the jury finds the defendant not guilty on all counts. After all, being forced to take responsibility for killing thousands and crippling the health of thousands more would impact profit margins to an unacceptable extent."
I was not implying that a corporation <i>should</i> get a jury of its peers, only that in cases like this a corporation may not get equal consideration.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1795888:date=Aug 23 2010, 07:38 AM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Aug 23 2010, 07:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1795888"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(snip) Not a single one mentions either a pressurised cup (snip) Also I'm probably misreading this or something, but you're claiming that McDonalds kept the coffee at over 100c to make the coffee smell nice, but then say that brewing coffee over 100c destroys the things that make it smell?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Neither am I. Please note that I said 'pressurized urn', not cup. You know, the big thing you fill the cup from, which stores the coffee after it's been brewed? Not the round glass things (though those are a style of urn, they are not pressurized or self-heating), the one with the faucet or spigot on the side. A pressurized <i>cup</i> is just ridiculous to begin with.
No. I said that it destroys the 'aromatic oils', which are what gives coffee its flavor. At higher temperatures it atomizes (and thereby oxidizes) faster, allowing the smell to spread (and yes, making the coffee taste worse... you only taste it after you've BOUGHT it, after all).
tankefuglOne Script To Rule Them All...Trondheim, NorwayJoin Date: 2002-11-14Member: 8641Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
This is one big de-rail! I guess my original question got partially answered though (as in: Noone knows for sure?).
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1796153:date=Aug 25 2010, 02:05 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Aug 25 2010, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796153"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Neither am I. Please note that I said 'pressurized urn', not cup. You know, the big thing you fill the cup from, which stores the coffee after it's been brewed? Not the round glass things (though those are a style of urn, they are not pressurized or self-heating), the one with the faucet or spigot on the side. A pressurized <i>cup</i> is just ridiculous to begin with.
No. I said that it destroys the 'aromatic oils', which are what gives coffee its flavor. At higher temperatures it atomizes (and thereby oxidizes) faster, allowing the smell to spread (and yes, making the coffee taste worse... you only taste it after you've BOUGHT it, after all).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you're missing the part where I directly quote the McDonalds quality assurance manager that McDonalds policy is to keep coffee "in the pot" (i.e. where it's stored after brewing and before serving) at 82-88c. And, again, there's nowhere in the process of serving that the temperature can be bumped up from 88c to over 100c.
And, once again, Stella's lawyers never once claimed the coffee was hotter than 88c. It never came up, anywhere, in the case. You are literally the only person I've found claiming that the coffee was ever hotter than 88c when she had it.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1796202:date=Aug 25 2010, 10:27 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Aug 25 2010, 10:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is one big de-rail! I guess my original question got partially answered though (as in: Noone knows for sure?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> A <b>futile/easily circumvented</b> attempt, but still a legal one to cover their own ass when someone under the legal age does see the video's (or site content).
"He lied about his age excuse"
And lot's of coffee related shizzle <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
[code][/code]<!--quoteo(post=1796202:date=Aug 25 2010, 01:27 AM:name=tankefugl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tankefugl @ Aug 25 2010, 01:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796202"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is one big de-rail! I guess my original question got partially answered though (as in: Noone knows for sure?).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a requirement of the ESRB. I don't know why the ESRB requires it though.
<!--quoteo(post=1796531:date=Aug 27 2010, 10:00 AM:name=Max)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Max @ Aug 27 2010, 10:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's a requirement of the ESRB. I don't know why the ESRB requires it though.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Probably because it was made by politicians with no grasp of the real world.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I thought the ERSB was just for games ratings. They have power over websites too?
Websites that are set up specifically as promotional tools for games I could understand, but I've seen age verification things on review sites and such too.
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1796674:date=Aug 28 2010, 06:03 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Aug 28 2010, 06:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796674"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So that means expect age verification drop downs before you enter the NS forums, in a not too distant future!? :p<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> But that's not fair to Depot, 1900 is as far as it will go <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/trollface.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<!--quoteo(post=1796186:date=Aug 25 2010, 01:43 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Aug 25 2010, 01:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1796186"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Makes you wonder what kind of market there is in selling exactly one cup of coffee to people. I'd think the big bucks would be in return customers.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno, I typically eat no more than 1 McDonalds burger every 5-6 months. This appears to be just long enough for my brain to forget that they don't taste nearly as good as they look (and look nothing like the pictures), and leave me feeling ###### afterwards. If I drank coffee, I imagine the same would apply. McDonalds isn't in the business of selling food remember, they're selling <i>convenience.</i>
Comments
The ones that don't let you retry are awful from a HCI perspective... Humans are not flawless and the design should allow for slip-ups.
I know I have accidentally put in wrong years before that put below whatever age is required (18/13). It happens, but even though I really am over the age, many don't let me reenter with the correct date without deleting cookies and all sorts of hassle.
Anyways, US rewards stupidity, so companies must make all sorts of idiotic warnings like, dont "dry your pets in the microwave" labels and stuff like that.
<b>... Didnt know the cofee was hot, its McD´s foult i burned myself! - Woman won and is now a millionare - result, coffe mugs are now labeled whit "hot stuff" inside at 7/11, McD and other places that sells to-go warm drinks.</b>
...Woman sues cigarate companies for getting cancer, becouse the warnings didnt mensure her by name. - result she lost, but it only shows that US citizens sues companies for everything.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's actually just an urban myth spread about the stupidity of McD's customers. The burn did happen, the customer did order extra hot coffee, but the coffee they gave her was so hot she got instant 3rd degree burns on contact when she spilled it. Totally the fault of the workers thinking "hey let's show this smartass customer", not to mention the standard practice of keeping their "regular" temperature coffee WAY hotter than it needed to be. You can read the case files online.
Edit: apparently like 10 other people commented on this too, oh well.
Edit: apparently like 10 other people commented on this too, oh well.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even though the case is more complicated than most people assume, I still think it's stupid.
The entire point is that this coffee was hotter than the woman (apparently) expected. But it's not like this coffee was superheated to a plasma state and nearly melted her legs off when she spilled it, it was actually (supposedly) cooler than the recommended brewing temperature of coffee. To clarify, no one is sure exactly how hot it was when she spilled it on her legs, but at the time, McDonalds policy was to brew/serve coffee at the drive-thru at 82-88c, which is hot. But the recommended brewing temperature for coffee is between 85-95c. So unless for some reason the coffee given to her was deliberately overheated in some way (which was never claimed, I might add; this possibility never came up in the case, the woman's lawyers used the 82-88c figure), the coffee she spilled on her lap was actually somewhat cooler than the coffee most people make themselves at home.
Her lawyers also claimed that the coffee served was "unusually hot" when compared to other coffee sold, <a href="http://overlawyered.com/2006/10/latest-hot-coffee-lawsuit-data-points/" target="_blank">despite the fact that places like starbucks and burger king have the same/higher temperature requirements.</a>
A similar case was tried in the UK, but was thrown out. <a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2002/490.html" target="_blank">Some of the reasoning given:</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->32. It is inevitable that there will be occasions when hot drinks are spilled notwithstanding that they have been served in a lidded foam cup. A hot drink served at temperatures between 78.88 C and 90 C would cause a deep thickness burn if it spilled onto a visitor and was in contact with his skin for little more than a second. McDonald’s knew that there was a risk of injury of this sort if a hot drink was spilled. It follows, submits Mr. Horlock Q.C. for the claimants, that McDonald’s were negligent in serving hot drinks at the temperatures they did.
33. If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 C and 60 C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 C and 60 C would not have been acceptable to McDonald's customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically the claim is that to get a good coffee, it has to be hot. And waiting for it to cool down so much before serving it, or brewing it at a lower temperature, would piss customers off because the coffee they got would be crap.
When you buy a coffee, you expect it to be hot. The fact that Stella Liebeck was badly burned by the coffee (she was 79, required skin grafts and 2 years of recovery) is not really McDonalds' fault imo; you expect a coffee to be dangerously hot when you handle it, unless you've somehow gone your entire life only drinking and coming into contact with a lukewarm coffee. It should also be noted that there was never any confusion as to whose fault the spill was; it was her fault. The entire case was based around the temperature of the coffee, not (for example) a poorly designed cup that made spillages inevitable.
The entire case is regarded as silly because of the whole "responsibility" thing. Like it or not, companies are not responsible for the misuse of their products. If, for example, you got some plastic cutlery from a restaurant and was messing around with some friends, pretending to stab and cut yourself, and then actually did damage yourself somehow, you would look like a complete idiot if you sued the company because you "didn't expect the cutlery to be so sharp" (cue someone linking me to a case where this exact thing happened). If you were walking through their store, slipped on an unmarked wet patch, and stabbed yourself in the stomach then yes, that's their fault. If you're at home and you trip up stabbing yourself no, it's not their fault.
Also, just as a point of pedantism... the best coffee isn't made with boiling water. Destroys a number of those same aromatic oils when you get it quite that hot. 90-95C is the highest you should go when making a proper cuppa.
McDonalds required their franchises to serve coffee at 82-88c. It could *not have been* over 100c when she had it. Note, again, that this was never actually claimed by her lawyers. They specifically and repeatedly cite the 82-88c figure (claiming that it shouldn't have even been over 60c).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> (which is 82-88c).
At no point in the Stella Liebeck court case was the idea of the container being pressurised or otherwise poorly designed raised, by either side. Also at no point was the idea that the coffee was 100c or hotter raised. She spilled the coffee while holding it with her knees and removing the top, and it would've been, at most, 90c-ish.
A few links I've found about the case:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._Mc...9;s_Restaurants</a> (lol)
<a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html" target="_blank">http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html</a>
<a href="http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-legends-and-stella-liebeck-and-the-mcdonalds-coffee-case/" target="_blank">http://overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban-lege...ds-coffee-case/</a>
<a href="http://osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm" target="_blank">http://osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm</a>
Not a single one mentions either a pressurised cup, or a temperature of over 100c.
It's also worth noting that Stella wasn't given third degree burns "in a couple of seconds". She was wearing sweat pants that absorbed the coffee and by her own admission was sitting in the puddle for 90 seconds.
Also to respond to be pedantic in reply to more pendantic...ness, from the thing I quoted in my post:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and <b>coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 C and 95 C.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
EDIT
Also I'm probably misreading this or something, but you're claiming that McDonalds kept the coffee at over 100c to make the coffee smell nice, but then say that brewing coffee over 100c destroys the things that make it smell?
Also from what I understood the pressure was on before serving, not in the cup itself, though I dunno how that's relevant to the accident.
Unfortunately when it comes between an injured old lady and a big faceless corporation that can stand to lose a few mullion dollars, depending on who gets on the jury, the rest of the facts do not matter.
This case is viewed as a massive failure of the US legal system by everyone I know.
Not to mention it triggered a whole slew of anti-corporate lawsuits for random stuff.
Oh man, can you imagine Dow Chemical being judged by a jury of its peers?
"In conclusion, your honour, by unanimous decision the jury finds the defendant not guilty on all counts. After all, being forced to take responsibility for killing thousands and crippling the health of thousands more would impact profit margins to an unacceptable extent."
Not a single one mentions either a pressurised cup
(snip)
Also I'm probably misreading this or something, but you're claiming that McDonalds kept the coffee at over 100c to make the coffee smell nice, but then say that brewing coffee over 100c destroys the things that make it smell?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Neither am I. Please note that I said 'pressurized urn', not cup. You know, the big thing you fill the cup from, which stores the coffee after it's been brewed? Not the round glass things (though those are a style of urn, they are not pressurized or self-heating), the one with the faucet or spigot on the side. A pressurized <i>cup</i> is just ridiculous to begin with.
No. I said that it destroys the 'aromatic oils', which are what gives coffee its flavor. At higher temperatures it atomizes (and thereby oxidizes) faster, allowing the smell to spread (and yes, making the coffee taste worse... you only taste it after you've BOUGHT it, after all).
No. I said that it destroys the 'aromatic oils', which are what gives coffee its flavor. At higher temperatures it atomizes (and thereby oxidizes) faster, allowing the smell to spread (and yes, making the coffee taste worse... you only taste it after you've BOUGHT it, after all).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But you're missing the part where I directly quote the McDonalds quality assurance manager that McDonalds policy is to keep coffee "in the pot" (i.e. where it's stored after brewing and before serving) at 82-88c. And, again, there's nowhere in the process of serving that the temperature can be bumped up from 88c to over 100c.
And, once again, Stella's lawyers never once claimed the coffee was hotter than 88c. It never came up, anywhere, in the case. You are literally the only person I've found claiming that the coffee was ever hotter than 88c when she had it.
A <b>futile/easily circumvented</b> attempt, but still a legal one to cover their own ass when someone under the legal age does see the video's (or site content).
"He lied about his age excuse"
And lot's of coffee related shizzle <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/rolleyes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Coffee is <b><i>serious business.</i></b>
<div align='center'><a href="http://www.existence-unknown.com/gallery3/1shot-comics/_article/joker-coffee-is-serious-business.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.existence-unknown.com/marbl_media/articles/1shot-comics/joker-coffee-is-serious-business.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a></div>
pERHAPS WE SHOULD REVIVE THE DISCUSSION FORUMS EH FOLKS OLOLOLOLOL
It's a requirement of the ESRB. I don't know why the ESRB requires it though.
Probably because it was made by politicians with no grasp of the real world.
Also, OMG MAX IN THE OTF.
EDIT: spelling
Websites that are set up specifically as promotional tools for games I could understand, but I've seen age verification things on review sites and such too.
But that's not fair to Depot, 1900 is as far as it will go <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/trollface.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I dunno, I typically eat no more than 1 McDonalds burger every 5-6 months. This appears to be just long enough for my brain to forget that they don't taste nearly as good as they look (and look nothing like the pictures), and leave me feeling ###### afterwards. If I drank coffee, I imagine the same would apply. McDonalds isn't in the business of selling food remember, they're selling <i>convenience.</i>
Also, age verification. Something.