The newspaper of H.L. Mencken gave this site a nice recommendation Nov. 24 (not online) in its column about the Web, “The Monitor”:What’s the point? — This site explores the ever-increasing litigiousness of society by…

Starbucks sells coffee just as hot, as does Bunn-o-matic, Dunkin’ Donuts, and any other place that wants to be known for having good coffee.

That is the PREFERRED temperature for coffee to be served, as evidenced repeatedly by where people choose to go for coffee.

McDonald’s, Starbucks, and Dunkin’ Donuts have no incentive to serve coffee that’s “too hot.” They serve coffee at the temperature they do because that’s what their customers prefer. Most courts have the common sense to throw out these claims when plaintiffs claim that hot coffee is inherently defective. Whether that will still be true in twenty years after the current generation of law students are judges is the question.

“The optimal temperature range for brewing coffee is 195 to 204 degrees F. Many coffeemakers don’t get up to 195, so test yours with a stick thermometer (such as a milk frothing thermometer). Just insert it carefully into the brew basket suring the usual brew cycle.

If the temperature of the brew water isn’t at least 195 degrees, the coffee is underextracted, not as flavorful, and can actually have a sour taste.

The best temperature for drinking coffee is 130 to 140 degrees…not scalding hot. You will taste much more flavor at this temperature.”

Grinding my own beans since 1990.
Colin

1. The McDonald’s case was not reversed on appeal. McDonald’s settled rather than risk a larger award on appeal.

2. If ATLA and tort-law professors like Professor Turley adopted your argument and said “The McDonald’s coffee case was an aberrational mistake that the tort system should not be judged by,” that would be one thing, and perhaps even a correct argument. But they don’t: they argue that the McDonald’s coffee case was correctly decided, and that all hot-coffee-spills should result in recovery.

When the aspirational goal is to make the McDonald’s coffee case the norm, that merits commentary.

3. The system does not do a “fine job of flushing out” meritless suits early. Witness the Vioxx litigation: the first two cases were meritless, both went to trial, and one still has the potential for multi-million-dollar recovery. The third suit, starting this November, is also meritless, but will likely go through a multi-million-dollar trial first if Judge Fallon doesn’t have the courage to toss it, but no reasonable jury looking at the science could think that Vioxx was more likely than not the cause of Dicky Irvin’s fatal heart attack.

4. I’m not sure what you think I’ve failed to assess with the McDonald’s case. I’ve covered it in exhaustive detail in earlier posts.