I'm with her man; Dunkin coffee comes out so hot that when I used to get it, I'd ask them to put ice cubes in it.
Granted, I found this to be a perplexingly ubiquitous problem in NYC; just about everywhere that served coffee to-go in NYC, IME, served it at an absurdly hot temperature, and I routinely asked for ice cubes. That was not the case when I was living in LA. was weird :shrug:
That is what I figured, that it was for the benefit of people who would then take the coffee and walk with it on the way to work during the winter. However, they did this even when it wasn't winter...
My understanding is they do it to get more coffee out of the grounds so they use less coffee grounds to maximize profits which also increases the risk of cause esophageal cancer.
My personal preference to accomplish maximizing coffee extraction is to use extra filters and less coffee grounds but that takes longer which may not be a viable option for that type of business.
I don't think this is a relevant factor. According to one source [1], the optimum brewing temperature is "around 198-202ºF". That's only around 10F away from boiling. I'm not sure how much difference that would make in terms of burning. Keep in mind that something that's hot also cools faster, so by the time it ends up being served, the difference is likely much less than 10F
thats what insulated vessels are for. Hotter coffee simply has more heat to lose in a crappy cup. caveat emptor but it sucks for all involved except the idiots that run dunkin crapcakes that thought coffee that hot was a good idea.
edit: and maybe im a coffee snob or value my taste buds but id rather stay in bed than drink that stuff
I prefer it hot as fuck. Maybe that's just me. I don't want a luke warm cup of coffee. I think drinking coffee while driving is dumb as fuck if I'm perfectly honest. They said they the problem was the lid was not secured, what if the lid was secured, and she got in an accident because she has one hand on the wheel when both should be on the wheel? Is this lady 70 years old and never had a place serve a hot as fuck cup of coffee? It just feels like common sense to me that coffee is hot, and driving with a cup of hot liquids is dangerous.
Maybe it’s just fresh coffee? I don’t understand half these comments, it’s like they never made a pot of coffee before in their lives.
How do you expect them to cool down a fresh brew anyway, put it in a fridge for 10 mins before serving? I could imagine a busy coffee shop going through batches so quick that the pot is < 5 mins old before it’s empty
You don't need to be silly, nobody is putting it in a fridge.
It already loses temperature as it slowly drips into the pitcher. And then it continues to lose temperature quite quickly if it's not being actively kept hot.
So all you have to do is reduce the temperature of the hot plate underneath the pitcher. This is a setting that already exists.
And no, coffee shops don't empty out pitchers every five minutes. If they have that level of business they use the larger coffee machines that brew and hold a much larger volume, and again, it's a setting for what temperature to hold the coffee at.
I think we’re thinking of different kinds of coffee shops here. I’m making an assumption Dunkin is like Tim’s in Canada: they use regular size coffee pots and rotate them extremely quickly to keep the coffee fresh, usually discarding it if it’s > 15 mins old even. Their machines brew a pot in something like two minutes flat, from a commercial machine that has a boiler ensuring that the water is consistently 95 degrees C when it hits the grounds. You can’t get around having the brewing temp being damn close to the serving temp when you have a traffic jam on the road from the drive-thru backlog
I worked in an extremely busy coffee shop on campus when I was in university. It made more by lunch than many of the restaurants I worked in made all day. We had 5 large plastic insulated containers the coffee was brewed in. No hot plate at all. They were nice because they were easily moved, held a lot of coffee, and no hot plate needed. They could keep that coffee hot all day without cooking it down making that stale coffee sludge people expect from old coffee. Also made it easy to make them and carry them to an event we catered.
But it also probably meant that they stayed incredibly hot for a good 2 hours.
I've always had mixed feelings about these law suits. I know so many people who had their minds changed after seeing the effect that the McDonald's coffee had on that woman's legs. I didn't. She was balancing it on her legs while driving. Why do people keep putting something they know is dangerously hot in a place that can severely hurt them. Even moreso if they are driving.
It only took me a few (dozen) burns to my tongue before I learned to not drink coffee immediately after purchase. But I wouldn't hold a hot coffee between my legs anymore that I would hold a knife between my legs. At what point does personal responsibility kick in? Knives don't need a warning label, because they are considered to have a knowable danger. Why not something that boils water in the process of making it?
I have to wonder if it would have made me liable when a person wanted his fresh coffee extra hot and I heated it up even more for him (real person, regular customer, like 80 years old).
I am really not anti lawsuit for negligence. The original McDonald's case just always stuck with me. Even if it hadn't been that hot, but was just hit enough that your skin might get red, that's still hot enough that she could've easily gotten into an accident if some spilled on her leg. If something is ice cold, the same thing could happen. We really shouldn't be balancing things on or squeezing them between our legs as if our legs are a shelf and not a part of our body.
> Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
Huh. Guess I misremembered that part. Or perhaps what I was told in a class back in high school was incorrect. Good to know the correct information.
Nevertheless, going back to my knife analogy, if she were pulled over using a large kitchen knife cutting up something over her legs I wouldn't blame the people who sold her the knife.
Maybe it was too hot, but we should be treating hot things as dangerous by default.
> but we should be treating hot things as dangerous by default
There's a different between "ouch is hot" and "ouch I have third degree burns", you're parroting the talking points McDonalds aggressively sold the media on.
The point is that hot coffee is not meant to be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. It should not be so hot that you go into shock if you spill it on yourself.
If you were told about this during the current events cycle all you had was McDonald's mouthpieces talk about how she was an ambulance chaser, and not how she'd asked for only $10 thousand to just cover the hospital bills. The giant lawsuit amount you saw was after the jury applies punitive damages because McDonalds (1) lied about why it need the coffee so hot (saying commuters wanted in, not the actual reality of it saving 20 seconds), (2) this kind of extreme burn had occurred more than 700 times already, (3) was significantly above recommended maximum food temperature, and (4) McDonald's own expert acknowledged that it was physically impossible to their coffee at the serving temperature.
Going to your knife analogy, a better example might be a knife with a handle designed your hand in normal use would easily slip onto a sharp area - lets say a kitchen knife with a sharpened bolster. Your argument would be "knives are dangerous so you should be careful when using them", and therefore despite the design of the knife in standard use being much more dangerous and likely to cause harm than any other knife it would be fine. As the lawsuit found however, if you make a product that in normal use is significantly more dangerous than any other product when used in the same way, it may just be that your design is defective and the resulting harm is due to that defective design and not user error.
Seems like a large chain would make things in bigger batches where things would be easier to control anyway.
Plus, it's easy to imagine a commercial bulk coffeemaker that's designed to make coffee at the average rate you're selling it, hold it in a cooling chamber for a while, then put it in a vacuum insulated chamber from there.
I like fresh coffee, and the safety issues is minor, but if it's going to be stale anyway, I might as well get the benefits of the crappy bulk process.
Especially when keeping it hotter for too long seems like it would oxidize something and make it even more stale faster.
Fresh coffee is BREWED at 90-95C. You shouldnt SERVE coffee anywhere near that hot. coffee can still be served hot but not literally scalding, and if you want to have a hot cup of coffee a little later get an insulated cup/thermos. there are quite a lot nowadays that keep liquids quite hot for hours
You brew at 170-190f so by the time it hits the cup it’s probably closer to 150-170. No need to keep it that hot except because it’s bad and you want to cut costs and over extract the coffee beans
Since obviously people can't trust these businesses to provide a quality product in a safe manner, it would be better if people kept expecting them to.
It's reasonable to assume that any coffee that is served fresh will be scalinging hot, and that if you grip any disposable coffee cup too tightly, then the top wil pop off.
The staff didn't spill the coffee on the lady, she did it to herself.
I doubt this would go to court in other developed countries where healthcare is free!?
They don't have drive-thru coffee service in other developed countries, in my experience. That's an American thing.
And according to other coffee-drinkers here, DD serves their coffee much hotter than other places, so no, it's NOT reasonable to assume it'll be that hot.
Unsafe options by default, hence the prevalence of "extra hot" elsewhere.
Maybe it's better to avoid expensive, convenient consumption with single-use waste and get a mug, burr grinder, and K-cup machine with a refillable adapter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
US companies tend to lack proactive risk management because the approach to consumer product safety doesn't insist on the precautionary principle and instead focuses on periodic, reactive tort litigation after harm has already occurred, placing the burden of proof on those harmed. This is like the difference between quality control and quality assurance. One tries to fix things upstream to be better overall while the other drops an "Inspected by #42" on anything that isn't obviously unsellable.
Sigh, I guess this will just continue the trend of companies not being able to provide customers what they want due to the litigious nature of the US court system.
Gone are the days where kids can push themselves to the limit on the playground and learn that falling is not good.
Back when i was still drinking Starbucks’ coffee i always had to ask for not too hot or to pour some cold milk on top. I dont understand their fixation with lava hot drinks. Perhaps to kill off any bacteria and viruses that may be lingering in their cups? Because it certainly doesnt taste good when it’s as hot as not to be able to drink it.
41 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadGranted, I found this to be a perplexingly ubiquitous problem in NYC; just about everywhere that served coffee to-go in NYC, IME, served it at an absurdly hot temperature, and I routinely asked for ice cubes. That was not the case when I was living in LA. was weird :shrug:
My personal preference to accomplish maximizing coffee extraction is to use extra filters and less coffee grounds but that takes longer which may not be a viable option for that type of business.
[1] https://www.seriouseats.com/make-better-pourover-coffee-how-...
How do you expect them to cool down a fresh brew anyway, put it in a fridge for 10 mins before serving? I could imagine a busy coffee shop going through batches so quick that the pot is < 5 mins old before it’s empty
Fresh coffee is HOT, like 95 Celsius hot!
It already loses temperature as it slowly drips into the pitcher. And then it continues to lose temperature quite quickly if it's not being actively kept hot.
So all you have to do is reduce the temperature of the hot plate underneath the pitcher. This is a setting that already exists.
And no, coffee shops don't empty out pitchers every five minutes. If they have that level of business they use the larger coffee machines that brew and hold a much larger volume, and again, it's a setting for what temperature to hold the coffee at.
This is an extremely solved problem.
But it also probably meant that they stayed incredibly hot for a good 2 hours.
I've always had mixed feelings about these law suits. I know so many people who had their minds changed after seeing the effect that the McDonald's coffee had on that woman's legs. I didn't. She was balancing it on her legs while driving. Why do people keep putting something they know is dangerously hot in a place that can severely hurt them. Even moreso if they are driving.
It only took me a few (dozen) burns to my tongue before I learned to not drink coffee immediately after purchase. But I wouldn't hold a hot coffee between my legs anymore that I would hold a knife between my legs. At what point does personal responsibility kick in? Knives don't need a warning label, because they are considered to have a knowable danger. Why not something that boils water in the process of making it?
I have to wonder if it would have made me liable when a person wanted his fresh coffee extra hot and I heated it up even more for him (real person, regular customer, like 80 years old).
I am really not anti lawsuit for negligence. The original McDonald's case just always stuck with me. Even if it hadn't been that hot, but was just hit enough that your skin might get red, that's still hot enough that she could've easily gotten into an accident if some spilled on her leg. If something is ice cold, the same thing could happen. We really shouldn't be balancing things on or squeezing them between our legs as if our legs are a shelf and not a part of our body.
This is not true.
> Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
Nevertheless, going back to my knife analogy, if she were pulled over using a large kitchen knife cutting up something over her legs I wouldn't blame the people who sold her the knife.
Maybe it was too hot, but we should be treating hot things as dangerous by default.
There's a different between "ouch is hot" and "ouch I have third degree burns", you're parroting the talking points McDonalds aggressively sold the media on.
The point is that hot coffee is not meant to be hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. It should not be so hot that you go into shock if you spill it on yourself.
If you were told about this during the current events cycle all you had was McDonald's mouthpieces talk about how she was an ambulance chaser, and not how she'd asked for only $10 thousand to just cover the hospital bills. The giant lawsuit amount you saw was after the jury applies punitive damages because McDonalds (1) lied about why it need the coffee so hot (saying commuters wanted in, not the actual reality of it saving 20 seconds), (2) this kind of extreme burn had occurred more than 700 times already, (3) was significantly above recommended maximum food temperature, and (4) McDonald's own expert acknowledged that it was physically impossible to their coffee at the serving temperature.
Going to your knife analogy, a better example might be a knife with a handle designed your hand in normal use would easily slip onto a sharp area - lets say a kitchen knife with a sharpened bolster. Your argument would be "knives are dangerous so you should be careful when using them", and therefore despite the design of the knife in standard use being much more dangerous and likely to cause harm than any other knife it would be fine. As the lawsuit found however, if you make a product that in normal use is significantly more dangerous than any other product when used in the same way, it may just be that your design is defective and the resulting harm is due to that defective design and not user error.
Plus, it's easy to imagine a commercial bulk coffeemaker that's designed to make coffee at the average rate you're selling it, hold it in a cooling chamber for a while, then put it in a vacuum insulated chamber from there.
I like fresh coffee, and the safety issues is minor, but if it's going to be stale anyway, I might as well get the benefits of the crappy bulk process.
Especially when keeping it hotter for too long seems like it would oxidize something and make it even more stale faster.
The staff didn't spill the coffee on the lady, she did it to herself.
I doubt this would go to court in other developed countries where healthcare is free!?
And according to other coffee-drinkers here, DD serves their coffee much hotter than other places, so no, it's NOT reasonable to assume it'll be that hot.
And since I'm dumb and never learn I keep doing it, hoping that this one timeaybe I won't need to wait 60 minutes to drink my coffee.
Maybe it's better to avoid expensive, convenient consumption with single-use waste and get a mug, burr grinder, and K-cup machine with a refillable adapter. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
US companies tend to lack proactive risk management because the approach to consumer product safety doesn't insist on the precautionary principle and instead focuses on periodic, reactive tort litigation after harm has already occurred, placing the burden of proof on those harmed. This is like the difference between quality control and quality assurance. One tries to fix things upstream to be better overall while the other drops an "Inspected by #42" on anything that isn't obviously unsellable.
2) Any product that's served hot enough to scald if it falls on skin is an invitation for a lawsuit. Glad she got $3M.
"the law museum said. The plaintiff in that case was initially awarded nearly $3 million, but she settled for less, around $480,000, after an appeal."