Wal-Mart sued for improperly assembled bicycle

Michael Press

In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
> > degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
> > internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> > serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> > were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> > it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
>
> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.

In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.

--
Michael Press

SMS

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
>
> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.

By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.

In high volume coffee houses, and in good restaurants, they brew the
coffee into insulated urns or carafes that are unheated, because heating
the coffee makes it bitter and destroys the anti-oxidants.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:EJ88k.14287$Ri.4254@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> In high volume coffee houses, and in good restaurants, they brew the
> coffee into insulated urns or carafes that are unheated, because heating
> the coffee makes it bitter and destroys the anti-oxidants.

I see among other talents you don't know how to make and maintain coffee
either.

SMS

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:EJ88k.14287$Ri.4254@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> In high volume coffee houses, and in good restaurants, they brew the
>> coffee into insulated urns or carafes that are unheated, because
>> heating the coffee makes it bitter and destroys the anti-oxidants.
>
> I see among other talents you don't know how to make and maintain coffee
> either.

You can learn about the way that proper coffee houses store the brewed
coffee at: "http://www.peets.com/images/pdf/sanjose_mercurynews.pdf"

"http://www.peets.com/images/pdf/sanjose_mercurynews.pdf"

"Once brewed, the coffee is kept in an insulated urn to keep the
beverage hot without subjecting it to direct heat, which could turn it
bitter."

Peet's isn't alone in this protocol, most of the good independent coffee
houses do the same thing. You never want to heat brewed coffee.

You can learn about anti-oxidants and coffee at
http://coffeescience.org/antioxidant

I think that you are upset that I was one of the individuals that proved
you wrong about the benefits of helmets, and that proved you wrong about
the facts of the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, and thus you feel compelled
to argue about everything I write, even when you clearly have no idea of
what you're talking about.

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:W7f8k.19553$co7.11103@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> I think that you are upset that I was one of the individuals that proved
> you wrong about the benefits of helmets

Somehow I don't recall that. Quoting helmet company financed "limited
studies" isn't proving anything. The full population studies proved that
helmets have no descernable effects.

> and that proved you wrong about the facts of the McDonald's coffee lawsuit

You have a great imagination I'll grant you that. I ALSO don't know the
woman's age but that doesn't change the fact that the dope spilled coffee on
herself and a dopey jury awarded her a load of money for it and a subsequent
court retracted the vast majority of that dumb award.

But then again, I was in a court in which a man who had (admitted) run a
stop sign and been hit by someone DOING THE SPEED LIMIT claimed that speed
limit or not the other person was going to fast for conditions as proved by
the accident itself. Since the other person didn't have a lawyer there to
advise him what a stupid claim that was the judge allowed it and found the
person who ran the stop sign innocent and the man who hit him guilty.
Meaning that court cases do not law prove.

Michael Press

In article <EJ88k.14287$Ri.4254@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
> >>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
> >>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> >>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> >>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> >>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
> >> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
> >> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
> >> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
> >
> > In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
> > Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
> > dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
>
> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.

What you describe here is not what I did.
The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.

--
Michael Press

Tom Kunich

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:rubrum-7E72FC.18495424062008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>
> What you describe here is not what I did.
> The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.

Michael, it appears that Steven will only agree with his own point of view.

SMS

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <EJ88k.14287$Ri.4254@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
>>>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
>>>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
>>>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
>>>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
>>>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
>>>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
>>>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
>>>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
>>> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
>>> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
>>> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
>> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
>> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
>> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
>> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.
>
> What you describe here is not what I did.
> The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.

The temperature of coffee falls rapidly between the boiling water poured
over the ground coffee and the holding vessel if the vessel isn't
insulated. By the time 212 degree water goes through the filter into the
vessel it will have fallen to less than 195 degrees, and 20 minutes
later it'll be under 180.

The problem at McDonald's wasn't that they brewed it at too hot a
temperature, it was that after it was brewed it was not allowed to cool
down naturarlly, but instead was kept at an artifially elevated
temperature.

Any place that serves so little coffee that they have to keep it hot for
extended periods of time with a heating element is a place to not buy
coffee.

Michael Press

In article <1Hj8k.14483$Ri.2869@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <EJ88k.14287$Ri.4254@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6866@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> >>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
> >>>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
> >>>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> >>>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> >>>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> >>>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
> >>>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
> >>>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
> >>>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
> >>> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
> >>> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
> >>> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
> >> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
> >> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
> >> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
> >> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.
> >
> > What you describe here is not what I did.
> > The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.
>
> The temperature of coffee falls rapidly between the boiling water poured
> over the ground coffee and the holding vessel if the vessel isn't
> insulated. By the time 212 degree water goes through the filter into the
> vessel it will have fallen to less than 195 degrees, and 20 minutes
> later it'll be under 180.

In your home. Scale changes things. Your categorical statement is false.
Do you know that the concrete pour of Boulder dam required cooling pipes
inside the pour, else the time required to dissipate the heat of
the hydration of the portland cement would be ~200 years?

--
Michael Press

Tom Kunich

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:1Hj8k.14483$Ri.2869@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> Any place that serves so little coffee that they have to keep it hot for
> extended periods of time with a heating element is a place to not buy
> coffee.

Now you're telling us where to buy coffee.

RicodJour

On Jun 25, 9:34 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> Now you're telling us where to buy coffee.

Magilla would appreciate this place. http://www.gorillacoffee.com
It's a block down from R&A Cycles in Brooklyn.

R

Jay Beattie

On Jun 25, 1:15*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <1Hj8k.14483$Ri.2...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Michael Press wrote:
> > > In article <EJ88k.14287$Ri.4...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> > > *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Michael Press wrote:
> > >>> In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> > >>> *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around175
> > >>>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read onthe
> > >>>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
> > >>>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
> > >>>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
> > >>>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
> > >>>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
> > >>>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degreesit
> > >>>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
> > >>> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
> > >>> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
> > >>> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
> > >> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
> > >> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
> > >> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
> > >> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.
>
> > > What you describe here is not what I did.
> > > The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.
>
> > The temperature of coffee falls rapidly between the boiling water poured
> > over the ground coffee and the holding vessel if the vessel isn't
> > insulated. By the time 212 degree water goes through the filter into the
> > vessel it will have fallen to less than 195 degrees, and 20 minutes
> > later it'll be under 180.
>
> In your home. Scale changes things. Your categorical statement is false.
> Do you know that the concrete pour of Boulder dam required cooling pipes
> inside the pour, else the time required to dissipate the heat of
> the hydration of the portland cement would be ~200 years?

Interesting point, but the bottom line is what a reasonable consumer
of coffee expects to get in the cup. The jury was probably given an
instruction to the effect that the cup of coffee was defective if they
found that it was dangerous to an exent beyond that contemplated by
the ordiniary consumer of coffee. The jury could conclude that the cup
of coffee was defective because the coffee was too hot (as evidenced
by the average temperature of other take out coffee in the area -- or
even home pots), because the cup was not rigid enough, because the lid
was not secure -- who knows. The verdict may not have been based on
the temperature of the coffee alone.

If a properly designed and manufactured cup of coffee is capable of
causing harm if used in a foreseeable manner, then there is a duty to
warn -- assuming it is possible to have a sufficient warning being
that people don't generally read their cups. McDonalds probably
concluded that a warning was not feasible, and it simply turned down
the thermostat on its coffee makers. So, the average consumer now
gets what he or she expects -- average hot coffee. That is certainly
a bummer for the hot coffee set -- and illustrate the unfortunate
leveling effect of the product liability law.

Also note that in "consumer expectation" states like Oregon, there is
no strict liability for obviously dangerous products. A consumer does
not expect that a whirling, unguarded blade will be safe -- so prop-
strike cases are hard to prove. I actually represented a number of
distilled spirits/beer brewers in a case brought by a prison inmate
who claimed his life was ruined by alcohol. No liability. Everyone
knows that well-made booze can ruin your life. Some states (like
California) use a "risk-utility" test, and the outcome can be
different under that test where the product is obviously danagerous
and has a low utility.

Now, plaintiffs can always pursue straight negligence claims (and not
strict products liability), but those are hard to prove because, for
example, a reasonable coffee seller may choose to sell really hot
coffee because it appeals to a certain market -- or because the
aromatics are released above 175 degrees or for some other good
reason. On the other hand, the evidence may be that no fool in his or
her right mind would sell 180 degree coffee in a paper cup. This is
where experts come in (among other places). God knows what the
evidence was in the McDonalds case. There was certainly enough
evidence to get the case to the jury (or else the trial judge would
have granted a directed verdict). Once it gets to the jury, they do
what they do -- usually based on the law, but sometimes based on a lot
of other things. -- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 25, 11:56 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting point, but the bottom line is what a reasonable consumer
> of coffee expects to get in the cup. The jury was probably given an
> instruction to the effect that the cup of coffee was defective if they
> found that it was dangerous to an exent beyond that contemplated by
> the ordiniary consumer of coffee. The jury could conclude that the cup
> of coffee was defective because the coffee was too hot (as evidenced
> by the average temperature of other take out coffee in the area -- or
> even home pots), because the cup was not rigid enough, because the lid
> was not secure -- who knows. The verdict may not have been based on
> the temperature of the coffee alone.
>
> If a properly designed and manufactured cup of coffee is capable of
> causing harm if used in a foreseeable manner, then there is a duty to
> warn -- assuming it is possible to have a sufficient warning being
> that people don't generally read their cups.

And I'm sure that's the reason every restaurant I ever visit (in
America, anyway) has a server who tells me "Be careful, that's hot!"
about anything over room temperature.

It's certainly not a large amount of trouble for them to say that, and
I suppose it puts up a little bit of armor against the next clumsy,
litigious fool.

But I'm not looking forward to the day when the servers must say "Oh,
and that knife is sharp. And the tines on your fork are pointy. And
don't swallow your napkin."

At that point, we'll have posters here defending the "knife was too
sharp" lawsuit, because at home, they have dull knives.

<sigh> Warm gruel, served with spoons, to patrons wearing bubble-wrap
suits. And wearing helmets, of course, because you _could_ trip on
the stairs. If stairs are still allowed.

Safety! Safety!

- Frank Krygowski

carlfogel@comcast.net

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 1:15*am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article <1Hj8k.14483$Ri.2...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> > Michael Press wrote:
>> > > In article <EJ88k.14287$Ri.4...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>> > > *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Michael Press wrote:
>> > >>> In article <WgY7k.11144$uE5.6...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
>> > >>> *SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>> Apparently it is -- and the perfect serving temperature is around 175
>> > >>>>> degrees according to the coffee afficianados. From what I read on the
>> > >>>>> internet about the McDonalds case, the local take out joints were
>> > >>>>> serving their coffee about 20 degrees below McDonald's -- but there
>> > >>>>> were also customers who bought McDonald's coffee specifically because
>> > >>>>> it was really hot. McDonald's market niche was really hot coffee.
>> > >>>> By the time the water goes through the filter and drips into the pot it
>> > >>>> is much lower than boiling temperature. To serve it at 180 degrees it
>> > >>>> would have to be intentionally heated back up to a higher temperature.
>> > >>> In your home. I participated in large scale coffee operations.
>> > >>> Five gallons of boiling water (heated from a 1 inch steam pipe)
>> > >>> dumped over a muslin filter of coffee remains very hot indeed.
>> > >> By the time it drips into an uninsulated carafe, and is transported to
>> > >> the table, and poured, it has cooled considerably. What happened at
>> > >> McDonald's is that they kept the holding temperature up by heating the
>> > >> brewed coffee, a common practice in low-end restaurants.
>>
>> > > What you describe here is not what I did.
>> > > The coffee I brewed was HOT without reheating.
>>
>> > The temperature of coffee falls rapidly between the boiling water poured
>> > over the ground coffee and the holding vessel if the vessel isn't
>> > insulated. By the time 212 degree water goes through the filter into the
>> > vessel it will have fallen to less than 195 degrees, and 20 minutes
>> > later it'll be under 180.
>>
>> In your home. Scale changes things. Your categorical statement is false.
>> Do you know that the concrete pour of Boulder dam required cooling pipes
>> inside the pour, else the time required to dissipate the heat of
>> the hydration of the portland cement would be ~200 years?
>
>Interesting point, but the bottom line is what a reasonable consumer
>of coffee expects to get in the cup. The jury was probably given an
>instruction to the effect that the cup of coffee was defective if they
>found that it was dangerous to an exent beyond that contemplated by
>the ordiniary consumer of coffee. The jury could conclude that the cup
>of coffee was defective because the coffee was too hot (as evidenced
>by the average temperature of other take out coffee in the area -- or
>even home pots), because the cup was not rigid enough, because the lid
>was not secure -- who knows. The verdict may not have been based on
>the temperature of the coffee alone.
>
>If a properly designed and manufactured cup of coffee is capable of
>causing harm if used in a foreseeable manner, then there is a duty to
>warn -- assuming it is possible to have a sufficient warning being
>that people don't generally read their cups. McDonalds probably
>concluded that a warning was not feasible, and it simply turned down
>the thermostat on its coffee makers. So, the average consumer now
>gets what he or she expects -- average hot coffee. That is certainly
>a bummer for the hot coffee set -- and illustrate the unfortunate
>leveling effect of the product liability law.
>
>Also note that in "consumer expectation" states like Oregon, there is
>no strict liability for obviously dangerous products. A consumer does
>not expect that a whirling, unguarded blade will be safe -- so prop-
>strike cases are hard to prove. I actually represented a number of
>distilled spirits/beer brewers in a case brought by a prison inmate
>who claimed his life was ruined by alcohol. No liability. Everyone
>knows that well-made booze can ruin your life. Some states (like
>California) use a "risk-utility" test, and the outcome can be
>different under that test where the product is obviously danagerous
>and has a low utility.
>
>Now, plaintiffs can always pursue straight negligence claims (and not
>strict products liability), but those are hard to prove because, for
>example, a reasonable coffee seller may choose to sell really hot
>coffee because it appeals to a certain market -- or because the
>aromatics are released above 175 degrees or for some other good
>reason. On the other hand, the evidence may be that no fool in his or
>her right mind would sell 180 degree coffee in a paper cup. This is
>where experts come in (among other places). God knows what the
>evidence was in the McDonalds case. There was certainly enough
>evidence to get the case to the jury (or else the trial judge would
>have granted a directed verdict). Once it gets to the jury, they do
>what they do -- usually based on the law, but sometimes based on a lot
>of other things. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Many of the points that you speculate about are mentioned on pages
like this:
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel