this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
37 points (97.4% liked)
Asklemmy
51663 readers
418 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To give a quick highlight, because this case is often politicized and misrepresented:
So, the lawsuit never demanded McDonald's to put a warning that you're not supposed to spill hot coffee on yourself. It argued that it's an unnecessary safety hazard, because the coffee was served at hazardous temperatures.
No matter how many warnings you put down, it can happen that someone spills coffee on themselves and they shouldn't need to be hospitalized from that.
IMHO you didn’t make it sound less mad.
If coffee is made by pouring boiling water over coffee beans grinds, I would expect the temperature of the final product to be scalding hot. I would even go so far as to call it a feature.
Warning: Knives may cause injury. Well, yes, the whole point of them is to be sharp enough to cut something.
I’m glad I live in a less litigious society.
There are food safety standards for a reason. Coffee isn't supposed to be served at that high of a temperature. McDonald's intentionally broke the standard by serving coffee hotter than they were legally allowed to.
You prefer living in a place that McDonald's can internationally, and repeatedly violate safety standards with no recourse? That's a weird flex.
No of course I wouldn’t prefer living in a place where legal safety standards are ignored or non-existent. But that isn’t what I said either, so I refute your false dilemma argument :)
I don’t know the details of the lawsuit. I was merely commenting that the description of the case from the post I replied to didn’t make it make more sense. Your post did, though, so thank you for that. For what it’s worth in the UK and Denmark, the two countries I know well enough, the temperature of hot drinks don’t have a legal maximum and any liability would fall under “protecting customers from foreseeable harm” broad health and safety regulations.
So the question, at least from a legal perspective is what is foreseeable. Can coffee made with boiling water be foreseen to be scalding?
Certainly in the UK, case law suggest exactly that a hot drink should be foreseen to be scalding and therefore it is not negligent to serve it at scalding temperatures; see Bogle v McDonalds (2002) - https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2002/05/recent-case-on-the-supply-of-hot-drinks
So are all the companies that have reason to fear litigation.