re: #191 EPR-radar

I’m not a coffee drinker, but I suspect that the 211 degrees F coffee that McDonalds was serving was abnormally hot, and would pose much more of a hazard than a coffee drinker would normally expect from coffee.

IIRC, this was the main issue in the case, where people were getting third degree burns from ordinary accidents involving overly hot coffee. McDonalds defended this as sound business practice, since it extended the time period over which the coffee could be provided to customers. The jury was not impressed.

It’s the best example of a case where people with a shallow understanding of the case will think the verdict is outrageous, but people who are aware that the coffee was way too hot, and that McDonald’s knew this was the case can see that it was fair.