TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: McDonald's coffee From:Bob Morrisette <writer -at- SABU -dot- EBAY -dot- SUN -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 12 May 1995 23:06:51 GMT
In article 114566608 -at- aol -dot- com, HEP2 -at- aol -dot- com writes:
> >This is apparently why MacDonald's had to pay so much to that old lady who
> >spilled coffee in her lap--because the coffee did not say "Warning: Coffee
> is
> >hot!" (the cups now say this).
> This is not the reason for the huge jury award against McDonald's. On the
> surface it looks like a ludicrous award that the jury gave. But there must
> have been some reason, and there was. And it was a very good one.
> Here is the actual reason, and it had nothing to do with a lack of a warning
> label. See whether or not this changes your opinion about the jury award.
> We all know coffee is hot, or at least most people expect it to be. But there
> are limits to how hot it should be. Scalding is too hot and a company
> shouldn't be selling coffee exceptionally hot. So, why would McDonald's heat
> up their coffee beyond any drinkable limits and then hand it to someone?
> Simple. Profit. You see if you make coffee by super heating the water you can
> make more coffee from the package of beans. So, you get more coffee for less
> cost = more profit. Well, what if you manage to sell hundreds of millions of
> cups of coffee every year and can get 25% more product without spending any
> more money just by heating it up a lot hotter than most people expect.
> Most people when they order a cup of coffee expect to be able to hold the cup
> without it being so hot that you can't even hold the cup when it is handed to
> you. It was unclear whether or not the person dropped the cup after it was
> handed to them, or whether the person at the window handing out the coffee
> couldn't keep hold of it. The result was that the person received a splash of
> coffee that wasn't just hot, but was hotter than the hottest coffee you've
> ever held in your hand. And the coffee didn't land in her hand. And it was
> that hot on purpose. Considering those facts the jury found that McDonald's
> was in great error when they served that patron. And I agree with the jury
> completely and don't think the jury award was in the least unfair.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be a lawyer. The reason the jury awarded a huge amount to
the lady was because McDonald's is a famous company with $billions
in sales. If the lady had sued Joe's Drive-In for the same thing,
she would not receive anything.
Why are we discussing this in a tech writer's list?
