Father Jack posted:

How does keeping the coffee hotter save money?

Gripweed posted:

Mcdonalds couldn't provide evidence at trial that most consumers didn't drink coffee in their car. So it was either a lie or a thing that they believed mistakenly, and why the gently caress would you give Mcdonalds the benefit of the doubt?

CleverHans posted:

IIRC keeping the coffee at just shy of boiling levels meant they only had to break down and clean out/descale the machines a fraction of the time that they would've needed to had they been kept at standard brewing temperatures and it was extensively documented in internal corporate documents that this was the reason - saving on labor costs.

Captain Splendid posted:

I wonder if Geddy Lee talks like an ordinary guy

Memento posted:

Back then people drank their coffee when they got to their location, so making it super hot meant that it would be the right temperature when they got to work, meaning they would be more likely to buy coffee. People getting to their work/wherever and going "ugh this coffee is tepid, not getting that again" would cut into their bottom line.

They had those old plastic lids that you had to crack open that weren't really conducive to travel drinking, like this one:

Father Jack posted:

Do you have another explanation for why they did it?

It's easy to believe that they would put profit above customer safety. Harder that they would choose to serve the coffee so hot to begin with, and keep doing so once they were aware people were being injured by it for no particular reason.

Sponge Baathist posted:

ultrafilter posted:

https://twitter.com/captainkalvis/status/1129511138746519552

ultrafilter posted:

https://twitter.com/captainkalvis/status/1129511138746519552

The Internet posted:

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

gbut posted:

Gotta go fasr

Karate Bastard posted:

I don't get it why didn't the judge order these people to pour coffee on themselves?

Ultimate Mango posted:

Cruel and unusual punishment

Gripweed posted:

Sponge Baathist posted:

Blue Footed Booby posted:

It costs money to reprint all the training guides, retrain all the employees, and follow up (or at least go through the motions) to make sure the coffee makers are all adjusted right across thousands of locations.

Goodpancakes posted:

It's like the automotive insurance recall scene from Fightclub. McDonalds would have to spend money to revamp it's coffee process chain wide which costs a lot of money. If they draw a small amount of legal complaints, and they settle for not a ton of money, then it's cheaper to burn people and not revamp the coffee process.

gbut posted:

Gotta go fasr

Sponge Baathist posted:

Lobok posted:

We need someone in here to stop this derail. A hot coffee mod.

Sponge Baathist posted:

Lobok posted:

We need someone in here to stop this derail. A hot coffee mod.