Slashdot Mirror
Florida Man Sues Samsung, Says Galaxy Note 7 Exploded (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: Samsung Electronics Co was sued on Friday by a Florida man who said he suffered severe burns after his Galaxy Note 7 smartphone exploded in his front pants pocket. The lawsuit by Jonathan Strobel may be the first in the United States by a Samsung phone user against the South Korean company over a battery defect linked to the Note 7. It was filed one day after Samsung recalled about 1 million Note 7s sold in the United States. Samsung has received 92 reports of batteries overheating in the United States, including 26 reports of burns and 55 reports of property damage, U.S. safety regulators said. "We don't comment on pending litigation," Samsung spokeswoman Danielle Meister Cohen said in an email. "We are urging all Note 7 owners to power their device down and exchange it immediately." Strobel, 28, of Boca Raton, said he was in a Costco store in Palm Beach Gardens on Sept. 9 when his Note 7 exploded. He said the phone burned directly through his pants, resulting in severe burns on his right leg.
Knowing Florida Man, that's not the only thing that's exploded in his pants.
Exactly! Except, you know, coffee is supposed to be hot, but phones are not supposed to spontaneously combust.
Dunno, coffee is meant to be hot but phones aren't meant to explode.
Are you joking? Coffee is supposed to be hot, a phone is not supposed to explode. (And McDondald's got in trouble because their coffee was hotter than usual, and they had ignored the risk involved.)
Samsung has not responded well to this problem, and they will pay the price.
He withdrew the suit because the Samsung had a phone jack. Priorities people, priorities!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Exactly! Except, you know, coffee is supposed to be hot, but phones are not supposed to spontaneously combust.
As long as they run Android and have a phone jack - its all good.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Coffee is supposed to be hot, not boiling. You're a fucking idiot, you know that? A real moron.
I disagree, Samsung have responded reasonably on this.
What the court have to figure out here is if the Florida man were informed of the recall and just ignored it or if the information never reached him.
The answer to that should tell us if he is entitled to compensation for the burning battery or if he just is a jackass trying to capitalize on Samsungs mistake.
Here are their claims:
- You will be fine if you don't leave it charging overnight
- They will have replacement handsets sometime in the next few weeks.
The first claim is false according to many sources including Samsung. As for the second, they are supposed to have replacements by the 21st but hey that's just a schedule. No one sticks to those apparently.
It's FLORIDA MAN !!!
Are you dense? This happened Sep 9th. Recall wasn't official then.
Stay away from poorly engineered Android phones I guess.
Not even McDonald's coffee was boiling. The millisecond it's poured into a cup it stops boiling because there is no longer an energy source sustaining the conversion from liquid to gas. A typical coffee machine dispenses coffee at some 90 centigrade. That only leaves a few degrees more for McDonald's to up the temperature. Makes no real difference. Ridiculous lawsuit with a ridiculous outcome.
sério eu achei que essa merda pedófila tinha ido embora de verdade dessa vez.
Are you dense? This happened Sep 9th. Recall wasn't official then.
Stay away from poorly engineered Android phones I guess.
And links to a google search showing iphones burning up too!
:-)
Troll is troll, but let's play.
Should the government regulate these things, or should people sue in a free market?
Or, he asked rhetorically, are you trying to have it both ways?
Are you dense? This happened Sep 9th.
The issues were first reported late August. Samsung announced it was going to recall on Sep 1st. By the 8th the phone had already been banned on major airlines in multiple countries, by the 9th the government issued an advisory to stop using it. The only thing dense would be someone still using their phone at this point.
Stay away from poorly engineered Android phones I guess.
Yeah because the handful of phones which have exploded is really a bad trend from a company that has shipped just short of 10 billion smartphones since it entered the smartphone business.
Personally I suggest staying away from people who don't understand statistics and risk evaluation.
quando é que o pedro vai parar de enfiar morfina no felipe quando ele está dormindo? talvez quando ele concordar em estuprar criança como aquele padre viciado em lsd do são pedro.
A typical coffee machine dispenses coffee at some 90 centigrade. That only leaves a few degrees more for McDonald's to up the temperature. Makes no real difference. Ridiculous lawsuit with a ridiculous outcome.
McDonald's had a policy of holding the temperature at a high enough temperature to cause severe burns, had flimsy cups, and provided people with items to add to the coffee.
That was ridiculous on their part. It lead to numerous injuries and they knew it, but thought nobody cared. Then they finally got sued, and a jury found otherwise. In fact, a jury found they were reckless and imposed punitive damages. Which is why they now add all that stuff before it gets to you and they use better cups, though whether or not they reduced the temperature is another story.
Bottom line is that I'd already decided I don't want another Galaxy smartphone, though my overall feelings are mixed. This battery fiasco is liable to make my wants moot vis a vis buying anything from Samsung. In accord with the brokenness of today's stock market, the overreactions and spasms of the stock price may destroy the company. Stock price is just a matter of opinion, and it's usually stupid opinion, especially when it's a computer's. What matters is the visibility of the fiasco, and this one is way too visible.
Now about my own experiences... It was mostly the mismatch between international support and national marketing that made my Galaxy so unpleasant to own. In theory Samsung is an international company and support in English should be a sine qua non, the natural basis since Korean is not a widely used language. In practice, the local business partners handle most of the sales and are the direct customers Samsung is dealing with. The result in my case was a localized model that can't even be clearly identified in terms of the original Samsung model that had English manuals, and of course the local-origin software wrapped into the Android-OS level can't be touched and never had English support to obscure. The almost inevitable result was that my purchase-time hopes of falling back on English were almost inevitably blocked, creating anger and frustration that are only compounded when I scour the English manuals and discover things that are close without cigars...
The quality of the English manuals from Samsung was quite good, and I'm convinced that they understand the importance of support, but if you try to get support for a localized model, their response (in accord with the bean counters' orders) is "You need to ask your local carrier." My local carrier? Such a buffoon I don't want to give them the free publicity of a mention. (The rise of Trump has proven once again that there is no such thing as bad publicity, eh?)
Rather a shame. In many ways a good phone, but I've decided "No thanks" on a second. About the only hardware brand that I've had repeatedly good experiences with these days is Huawei, even though their stuff may have commie back doors in it. Also it might be my lack of any expectations of English support, so I wasn't disappointed, but mostly because their devices haven't needed much support. (One of them did get replaced due to a bad switch, but it was free warranty work and I was given a loaner immediately.)
By the way, the topic is target rich, and I hope we see some actually funny comments this time around... (Too fresh a topic as I write.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Well it's a good thing he doesn't hold his phone like she held her coffee
And links to a google search showing iphones burning up too!
Samsung's always trying to catch up with Apple.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
That "Halt and catch fire" is only an expression, and not supposed to mean that the phone should literally explode and burn.
Troll is troll, but let's play.
Should the government regulate these things, or should people sue in a free market?
Look - the free market is always self correcting. As soon as enough people die form Samsung phones, either word will get out, and people stop buying them, or their customers will be dead.
The free market is the answer to everything.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
a phone is not supposed to explode
Unless you are in a Michael Bay movie !
He may win, but this is exactly like the ridiculous lawsuit against McDonald's for hot coffee.
Since when was McDonald's serving super-heated plasma in their coffee cups?
Depends on whether FloridaMan wins this lawsuit or not.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Keep minimum safe distance of 1 foot from body
Finally, a reasonable use for the Selfie Stick!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Florida Man Strikes Again!
Samsung did a worldwide recall of Notes on September 2 warning of exploding batteries. His claim is that his exploded September 9th.
You can see the game he's playing from his lawyers FALSE claim: ""Unfortunately for my client the recall came too late.""
Trying to make a play on the date the US Consumer Product Safety Commission became involved. (September 14th) and ignoring the previous recall notice.
'Unfortunately my client ignored the first recall and maybe he would have ignored the second one too... but we'll never know because it exploded'..... that would be a truer statement.
This is a nuisance lawsuit to make money off his own mistake.
the iphones no longer have headphone jacks — and the samsungs explode in yer pants..!
bleah
or if he just is a jackass trying to capitalize on Samsungs mistake.
One mans mistake is another mans opportunity.
Your plurals and possessives are all over the place. The grammar police are on the way.
Thanks to fucking selfish cowards like you, I can no longer buy a cup of truly hot coffee. I'm glad you get to tell met that I can't have a cup of good coffee because you're too stupid to keep it off your cunt, but if rather have the opportunity to pay a decent price for hot coffee.
Apple hides their issues so idiots like you don't see them, but they have class action lawsuits on them all the time, in all their devices. Look out the most recent one on iPhone 6 and 6S touch screen issues. Apple tries to hide it, charges for repair, and gives you one that has the same design flaw so it will happen once again once they do change it.
At least Samsung did everything it can. The phone is an awesome phone, I own one. They were a victim of a manufacturing issue, it happens sometimes. It is how you deal with it that is important. Samsung didnt hide anything, or deny it. It halted sales and promised replacements, and accepted returns. They told people not to use the phone and produced an update to push to people who do not listen to make the phone less likely to encounter the issue if it was one of the effected phones.
You just stick to Apple since you think it is so good. They are running out of people to milk.
That's what she said
Oft quoted, but done so inaccurately. The McDonald's coffee lawsuit was not simply because the coffee was hot and spilled out of the cup. It's that it was so hot that it delaminated the bottom of the coffee cup, causing the bottom to fall off and the coffee to fall out. If your hot beverage cup is not capable of holding the hot beverage, negligence is a reasonable claim.
No, it's like intentionally pouring hot coffee over your private parts and then suing McDonalds. Even if he didn't inflict the burns on himself, he used a phone that by that time everybody knew was an explosive device.
I don't get it. He filed the lawsuit one day after the recall was announced, but the phone didn't blow up until Sept. 9th? I bought one on Sept. 1st, and the worldwide recall was announced officially on Sept. 2.
Troll is troll, but let's play.
Should the government regulate these things, or should people sue in a free market?
Look - the free market is always self correcting. As soon as enough people die form Samsung phones, either word will get out, and people stop buying them, or their customers will be dead.
The free market is the answer to everything.
Should I be allowed to buy/build nuclear weapons?
How about if I want to experiment with whipping up a new bio-plague?
What if I just want to drive around the countryside in a tank, shooting a rifle out a gun port? So long as I don't HIT anyone, it's perfectly safe.
Should I be allowed to experiment until "enough people die" or should the some group be able to set some sort of limit on what I'm allowed to do legally? I don't know, we could call it "government" and "regulations".
So, no.
Florida Man usually doesn't fare well in the courts.
> (And McDondald's got in trouble because their coffee was hotter than usual, and they had ignored the risk involved.)
This was the claim made by the plaintiff's attorney, but no, actually it was not.
First, I have no dog in this fight. I think McDonald's food is nasty and I don't go there unless I need coffee in the middle of the night and there's absolutely no other place open.
According to the court records (available many places online, plus the wiki entry) McDonald's served their coffee at 180 to 190 degrees.
In point of fact, this is the same temperature range that Starbucks, Dutch Brothers and Peets serve their coffee, both then and now. I didn't just take someone's word on this -- I happened to possess a lab thermometer at the time that I was using to diagnose server failure in a wiring closet (side note; an unventilated wiring closet is a bad place for servers. But I needed to prove this to the customer.) Buying a regular coffee at the above named shops and a couple of locals and checking with the thermometer, I found that every one was between 180 and 190 degrees.
You can test this for yourself -- buy or rent an accurate thermometer, walk into any Starbucks, order a regular coffee, and check the temperature. Be sure to do several to have a sufficient sample size. You'll find that they all serve coffee at a temperature equal to or greater than the temperature alleged in the lawsuit.
The reason for this is that 180 to 190 degrees fahrenheit is the proper serving temperature for coffee.
But don't bother testing McDonald's, because (in my experience) they all serve coffee lukewarm now. It's nasty.
There has been several urban legends from this case. The most amusing of which (told to me by a very earnest young lady) was that McDonald's was saving boatloads of money by making coffee with live steam which resulted in the coffee being too hot when served. I asked how this was supposed to save money. She didn't know.
But yes, McDonald's lost, and now they serve lukewarm coffee. But indications are, they lost because the defense team acted like arrogant assholes, and the plaintiff was sympathetic, not because of any practical reason.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You remind me of the guy upset at thermal valves being installed in shower heads.
Suck it bitch.
I think I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that the phone "exploding" is hyperbole by either the plaintiff or the press. Moreover, didn't the initial reports stipulate that the batteries overheated during charging? It's difficult to believe that a phone not connected to anything spontaneously detonated in a pants pocket. The trial might be really entertaining, but Samsung will probably settle out of court.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The reason for this is that 180 to 190 degrees fahrenheit is the proper serving temperature for coffee.
No, 180 to 190 is the common temperature for serving coffee in America by cheap coffee purveyours, because of monetary reasons. Go to Europe and you will be hard pressed to find any coffee shop serving coffee at temperatures greater than 155 degrees, which is the temperature human subjects prefer their coffee at. Here's the relevant quote:
The preferred drinking temperature of coffee is specified in the literature as 140+/-15 degrees F (60+/-8.3 degrees C) for a population of 300 subjects.
In "Calculating the optimum temperature for serving hot beverages". Fredericka Brown, Kenneth R. Diller. University of Texas Austin. Published in the Journal Burns, August 2008Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 648â"654.
Ok, so explain to me. Heat takes money to produce. How can serving a beverage at a hotter temperature be cheaper?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It hides bad flavor from cheap beans. If you serve coffee at a reasonable temperature, taste dominates your senses, if you serve it boiling hot you get a nice warm feeling and no idea what it tasted like.
Testing for myself isn't going to tell me much. I'd get a measurement of what the current temperature is, at that particular store, on that particular day. It wouldn't tell me what the temperature was for the plaintiff.
I have not seen a single bit of evidence to support the word "explode" being used in context with the Samsung battery problems. I certainly believe they melt, catch fire, even burst into flames... but *explode*???
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
How dare you bring facts to a discussion. This is Slaaasaaahdot!
Sorry about that. English isn't my native language and the concept of a Germanic language that sucks up to French really makes my head spin.
hasn't Florida Man been punished enough already?
"I need to get a (protective) bubble,"
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
...Similarly with all this "exploded" malarky. I think if something with that much chemical energy were to explode in my trousers pocket, the first thing going through my mind would be "Fuck! Where are my balls? And leg?" if I wasn't actually unconscious or dead, that is. An enthusiastic chemical fire and an explosion are rather different things.
Your post is correct regarding this issue being dealt with by Samsung - I should know. I got a text message about the recall on my Note 7 on the 4th, about 4 hours before it decided to go into the boot loop of death anyway, so it's been sitting neatly packed away in the box with all the gubbins it came with. (Had it not done that I'd have been using it up until I called them to confirm this recall was an absolute and not a "well, you should be okay" situation.) I had that chat with Samsung as per the message request, they've since called me back for some device specific details and I'll be chatting with the people at the shop I got it from on Monday (19th) to see about the replacement.
Then the fun begins on the boot loop issue - if it happens again there will be ... words. If I'm willing to pay £700 for a device I expect the fucking thing to work as advertised.
> (And McDondald's got in trouble because their coffee was hotter than usual, and they had ignored the risk involved.)
This was the claim made by the plaintiff's attorney, but no, actually it was not.
Actually, you're wrong. What doomed McDonald's in that lawsuit was that their own policies and procedures specified that the coffee be served at a lower temperature. Failing to follow their own three-ring binder is actually what got them nailed.
In point of fact, this is the same temperature range that Starbucks, Dutch Brothers and Peets serve their coffee, both then and now. I didn't just take someone's word on this
It doesn't matter whose word you did or didn't take. Your opinion on this case is irrelevant. The fact is that McDonald's uses inferior ultra-thin styrofoam cups which do not remain cuplike at those temperatures. They lose all rigidity and become basically a thick polystyrene bag. Since they know this, they deliberately specified that coffee should be served at a lower temperature. The franchise in question deliberately increased that temperature to increase pot hold times, at risk of causing harm to customers due to failing cups. This in fact came to pass, and they subsequently lost the lawsuit.
The reason for this is that 180 to 190 degrees fahrenheit is the proper serving temperature for coffee.
No, 160 to 185 is the proper serving temperature for coffee. But again, remember, the "proper serving temperature for coffee" is utterly irrelevant here, because the proper temperature range for McDonald's shitty cups is lower than that. McDonald's assumes you're going to begin eating and drinking immediately, so there's no reason for them to serve coffee at "optimal" temperature; to them, optimal temperature is something you can begin drinking right away, which (shock amazement) is at about 165. Something at 180 has to be slurped to cool it, and that particular manouever is too delicate to be performed in a moving car on American roads, which are shit.
But don't bother testing McDonald's, because (in my experience) they all serve coffee lukewarm now. It's nasty.
McDonald's coffee is lukewarm by design. It is how it is designed to be served. All fast foods are engineered; they have to achieve several goals and superior flavor is only one of them. They also have to not threaten, confuse, or bebother the customer, who has alternatives and will drive through some other place for breakfast if you don't coddle them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Apple fixes their problems and no one is injured. Samsung's shit catches fire and explodes.Big diff.
Ok, so explain to me. Heat takes money to produce. How can serving a beverage at a hotter temperature be cheaper?
I'll explain it to you. As slowly as required.
At the time, McDonald's offered free coffee refills in the USA. So if you sit in the restaurant and drink your coffee, and finish it, you go to the counter and get another one for free. Which costs about twice as much as one coffee.
To avoid this, McDonald's served the coffee so that it was undrinkable hot. So now you eat your food waiting for your coffee to cool down, wait a bit because it is still too hot, then you drink it and now you have spend so much time in a "fast food" restaurant that you don't have time to get another coffee and repeat the waiting game. No free second coffee = money saved for McDonalds.
About the temperature: A woman suffered instant third degree burns by pouring coffee on her trousers. If you drank that coffee, you would suffer instant third degree burns in your mouth. If I walked through the restaurant with a coffee and by accident stumbled over my own feet and dropped the coffee on a child, the child would suffer third degree burns. McDonald's was aware of this because they had settled over 700 cases out of court. But they told their staff to make the coffee so hot, so they could claim to offer free refills without anyone taking them up on that offer.
Samsung has not responded well to this problem
What exactly would you have them do that they have not already done? The way I see it, they've done everything short of send someone to every owner of a Note 7 to explain the situation and take their phone from them.
Samsung has not responded well to this problem
They recalled ALL Note 7 devices. Are you intentionally feigning ignorance? (hint: yes, you are)
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It hides bad flavor from cheap beans. If you serve coffee at a reasonable temperature, taste dominates your senses, if you serve it boiling hot you get a nice warm feeling and no idea what it tasted like.
Ok "boiling hot" is hyperbole, you must know that. But besides that, this doesn't explain why so-called "premium" coffee houses serve coffee in the same temperature range. (From experiment.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
My Phone Exploded! It was big enough an explosion to level a city block! BOOM! The government people suspected a small nuclear device. It was a phone! All of those Samsung phones are bad bad bad! Don't use any of them ever again. Don't just replace the battery, the whole phone is bad! The other guys phones are good good good! It sure is a good thing that the other guys don't use lithium ion batteries in their phones! Next up: Kim Jon Un putting Samsung phones on North Korean long range missiles; other nations worried.
Ok, so explain to me. Heat takes money to produce. How can serving a beverage at a hotter temperature be cheaper?
I'll explain it to you. As slowly as required.
Oh yes, please talk down to me.
At the time, McDonald's offered free coffee refills in the USA. So if you sit in the restaurant and drink your coffee, and finish it, you go to the counter and get another one for free. Which costs about twice as much as one coffee.
To avoid this, McDonald's served the coffee so that it was undrinkable hot. So now you eat your food waiting for your coffee to cool down, wait a bit because it is still too hot, then you drink it and now you have spend so much time in a "fast food" restaurant that you don't have time to get another coffee and repeat the waiting game. No free second coffee = money saved for McDonalds.
Ok, so, listen to what you just wrote. It has all the earmarks of a "made by live steam to save money"-grade urban legend -- overly complicated, unlikely, and flying in the face of common sense. It's even possible that a lawyer said this in a closing argument at some time, when they're not required to tell the truth, and can say anything they think will win their case. That doesn't make it true. That actually makes it less likely to be true.
About the temperature: A woman suffered instant third degree burns by pouring coffee on her trousers. If you drank that coffee, you would suffer instant third degree burns in your mouth. If I walked through the restaurant with a coffee and by accident stumbled over my own feet and dropped the coffee on a child, the child would suffer third degree burns. McDonald's was aware of this because they had settled over 700 cases out of court. But they told their staff to make the coffee so hot, so they could claim to offer free refills without anyone taking them up on that offer.
I'm sorry, this doesn't pass the bullshit test. Again, overly complicated explanation demonstrating a galactic-overloard-grade evil mindset that defies either common sense or direct observation. The fact remains that every "premium" coffee franchise serves regular coffee in this temperature range (and americano even higher) today. (Again, you can test this for yourself.) And their *business* is selling coffee.
Tell you what, let's been intellectually honest here -- I challenge you to go through the nearest Starbucks drive-thru, order a black regular coffee, and then test the temperature. I have already done this. You don't even need to report back. I would like you to see for yourself.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Ok, look. I remember you, and respect your opinion for other things you've written. You may have a good point about the crappiness of the cups -- I had not considered that. Peets or Dutch Brothers use thick(er), undeniably sturdier paper cups and always (in my experience) include one of those brown insulator rings.
180 - 190 vs 160 - 185 is, I would submit, somewhat of a quibble. I was going by the tests I did myself, where in every case regular coffee was in the mid-180's, (which is the top of your range) and an Americano (expresso plus hot water) could often be over 190 degrees. (Which in my opinion *is* too hot.) If you have some information that 160 - 185 is the proper range, one could argue that this matches my own tests (albeit at the high end). The fact remains that hot beverages, for any reasonable definition of "hot" have the potential to injure. But so do a lot of things in life, if not handled carefully. Like putting gas in your car.
I guess one could make the reasonable argument that if the cups (being of cheap construction) were not up to the job of containing a hot beverage the establishment was serving, this would indicate an issue with the establishment. And having been in jobs that require site visits at odd hours when McDogFood is practically the only damned place open, I do remember the flimsy, styrofoam cups. But I would submit that this is entirely different from tinfoil-hat arguments that McDonald's was somehow saving buttloads of money by serving their coffee litigiously hot, which would be more fitting as an item in the Evil Overlord manual.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
No it is not.
The proper serving temperature for coffee is about 140 F according to the National Coffee Association, you know, the people who are more interested in the quality of the coffee than how far you can carry the coffee while staying above that temperature in poorly insulated cheap paper cups.
Name one organization that advocates serving coffee at 180 F, and provide a link. You won't be able to find one.
But I would submit that this is entirely different from tinfoil-hat arguments that McDonald's was somehow saving buttloads of money by serving their coffee litigiously hot, which would be more fitting as an item in the Evil Overlord manual.
They were saving a little bit of money at the risk of giving customers serious burns. It's from the Stupid Overlord manual. That's why they're running only two things, Jack and Shit, and Jack has left town: McDonalds "restaurants" are closing left and right as former customers increasingly opt to eat something else. Since about WWII (apparently, I had to look it up) operating a franchise has been the go-to way for an idiot with a medium-sized handful of money to print more money. It's not typically the brightest of the bunch that sends off for the official Mickey Deeznutz magical restaurant kit. If you're planning to sling cheap chow and you're smart, you at least get the Irish-Pub-In-A-Box, because people buy booze even in recessions. We've all been there, right? Irish Nachos? What the fuck is this?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Haven't you heard, they double as espresso machines.
And you bought a Samsung anyway?
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
But I would submit that this is entirely different from tinfoil-hat arguments that McDonald's was somehow saving buttloads of money by serving their coffee litigiously hot, which would be more fitting as an item in the Evil Overlord manual.
They were saving a little bit of money at the risk of giving customers serious burns. It's from the Stupid Overlord manual.
Again, what I'm saying is that if you can set aside for a moment your obvious...
That's why they're running only two things, Jack and Shit, and Jack has left town: McDonalds "restaurants" are closing left and right as former customers increasingly opt to eat something else.
If you've worked for food service (I don't really want to think about that part of my life -- Pre-IT-career, I rose to manager of a fast food joint during a time I would soon forget.) you'd know that considering end-to-end cost, coffee is the third cheapest beverage to serve, right behind (2) iced tea, and (1) non-bottled water. Serving an inexpensive (most of the cost is labor, and most of *that* is borne by employees who'd otherwise be standing around waiting for customers) beverage at an unwantedly-high, (which I dispute, more in a moment) accident prone and ultimately litiguous temperature merely to reduce the cost of refills is *pragmatically* idiotic. Never mind the moral implications, it just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to risk litigation just to save on COFFEE REFILLS.
And again, regarding the temperature, check by: Observe that shops that are in the *business* of selling coffee serve that beverage in *demonstrably* the same temperature range as was claimed in the litigation. (Feel free to measure it yourself. I have.)
The other guy had a point about the cheapness of the cups. I had not considered that. But the mere temperature and tinfoil-hat legal arguments just don't fly.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I remember the facts of the case being something like this:
Woman gets coffee and additions (sweet stuff, white stuff) in a McDonald's drive-through. Woman parks. Woman holds cup in her lap and opens it to add sweet stuff and white stuff. Cup collapses when the lid is removed, and spills scalding hot coffee over a lot of her skin. Woman has something like $20K in medical bills, asks McDonald's to reimburse her, they refuse, case winds up in court.
What struck me was not so much the temperature of the coffee as the way the cup failed. If I were to get some sort of liquid in a cup, I'd expect the cup to be able to hold the liquid, and that was not true for McDonald's coffee cups. The coffee temperature may have weakened the cup, and it certainly caused a lot of damage, but if McDonald's had provided a halfway decent cup there would have been no injury and no lawsuit.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dear designers:
When Apple had the "courage" to remove headphone jacks to force the sale of expensive bluetooth earbuds, they did so in a way that is pissing people off and losing them business.
Your interpretation of that into "Be salesy! Encourage bluetooth device for listening by making phone courageously explode!" was very poor and might lose you *A LOT OF FUTURE BUSINESS*. Learn to translate the copying of business models. /humor
Testing for myself isn't going to tell me much. I'd get a measurement of what the current temperature is, at that particular store, on that particular day. It wouldn't tell me what the temperature was for the plaintiff.
The temperature range of the coffee at that particular McDonald's is mentioned in the court proceedings, so apparently someone had the data at some point. It was stated as being between 180 and 190 degrees. This is in the wiki for the lawsuit, and (if you want to be bored to death) is in the court proceedings, also online.
Shortly after the trial, I personally tested several local coffee houses (five, if I remember right -- I probably still have the spreadsheet somewhere), and every single one of them served, and (discounting the local that was bought out by Starbucks) still today serves coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees. I'd argue that this is relevant. I think a defense lawyer could argue in court that this is relevant, but indications are, the McDee suits were so confident of success that they didn't put up much of a defense.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Had the problems been discovered before or right up until the moment I forked the money over - of course not. I wasn't buying a iPhone. The problems were only discovered a few days after I'd received, charged & setup the phone. It's been sitting on my desk in the box it arrived in, slowly discharging and I'm going to get it exchanged for a new, battery defect free, unit tomorrow.
While I'm in the shop, I'll be mentioning about it suffering the bootloop of death, challenge them to get it working before I take the new one with me and I'll make sure they know that if the replacement does the same thing they'll get to choose which one of the following comes with me when I get a refund - a member of the press or a solicitor.
What did you think I was going to do? Magically predict the Note 7 was going to have issues with catching fire or locking up and buy something else that doesn't have the features of the phone I'd chosen? Buy something that hisses when it's in use? I haven't bought a phone since the Note 2, which I paid relatively little for on a medium cost two year contract. This one is going to be lasting me a few years - and yes I will be getting that battery changed when it needs it although I do hope Samsung learns from this that sealed units aren't their smartest offering and do something about it.
I remember the facts of the case being something like this:
Woman gets coffee and additions (sweet stuff, white stuff) in a McDonald's drive-through. Woman parks. Woman holds cup in her lap and opens it to add sweet stuff and white stuff. Cup collapses when the lid is removed, and spills scalding hot coffee over a lot of her skin. Woman has something like $20K in medical bills, asks McDonald's to reimburse her, they refuse, case winds up in court.
What struck me was not so much the temperature of the coffee as the way the cup failed. If I were to get some sort of liquid in a cup, I'd expect the cup to be able to hold the liquid, and that was not true for McDonald's coffee cups. The coffee temperature may have weakened the cup, and it certainly caused a lot of damage, but if McDonald's had provided a halfway decent cup there would have been no injury and no lawsuit.
Now *that* is a reasonable point. And it doesn't even require a conspiracy theory. The problem seems to be, (and here we circle back to the battery "exploding") that when something like this happens, the real, true facts of the case are almost immediately replaced by something much more dramatic, and both the plantiff's lawyers and the media are usually complacent in this. Just on the face of it, I personally doubt that any of the phones are "exploding". Maybe getting really hot, enough perhaps for combustion to occur in some circumstances, but detonation seems really unlikely.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Do they? When will they fix the design defect called bendgate?
Since bendgate led to touch disease, I guess never?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/c...
Coffee hot enough to produce third degree burns is too hot. Third degree burns is past blistering, past melting, all the way to exposed muscle. This isn't a little burn, it is quite extensive. McDonald's was warned repeatedly, and decided that the number of burns (700) occuring wasn't worth doing anything about. They knew the issue existed, and refused to settle for $20,000 as the woman offered (which was the cost of treatment, no more).
Everyone involved in the case, except those paid by McDonald's, felt that McDonald's acted willfully and with knowledge of the issue. They intentionally caused the issue knowing that it was lead to significant burns if someone actually tried to drink the coffee.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
This is where either hyperbole is occurring or the facts of the case are wrong. The temperature range quoted in the legal briefs was 180 to 190 degrees farenheit, which is not hot enough to expose muscle.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
It is hot enough to produce third degree burns in a matter of 2-10 seconds according to a burn expert used at the trial.
http://www.healthline.com/heal...
Third degree burns extend through all the layers of skin. It is a very bad burn, and requires hospitalization to properly treat.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The link describes the type of burns, but I didn't see anything about the temperature range quoted in the briefs having the ability to cause a third degree burn. (Also, i didnt see anything about exposed muscle being one of the symptoms.) Something appears to be wrong here.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
From the second link above:
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
A full thickness burn is another term for a third degree burn.
The exposed muscle was from what I was taught as a Boy Scout, this page seems to show it pretty well:
http://know-your-body.wonderho...
The blisters and skin can fall away exposing the musculature underneath as the whole skin covering has been damaged beyond your body's ability to repair it. They can even be fatal as bleeding will proceed pretty quickly if it is not treated properly. Take a look at the pictures in that article, the one with the white hand is the third degree burn.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If we accept as accurate the report from another person in this thread that a study has found that people prefer to drink their coffee at 140F with a standard deviation of 15 degrees as well as your definition of 'too hot'... Tap water at 155F, the uppermost end of the range, will need only one second to cause 3rd degree burns. At 150F, it will take 2 seconds to produce a 3rd degree burn according to the scald chart I looked up. At 140F, it takes 6 seconds. This means that at least half, if not a bit more, of people prefer their coffee 'too hot.'
Also, apparently coffee isn't as good at causing scalds as tap water. Reference: US Consumer Product Safety Commission Publication 5098 - Tap Water Scalds.
150 deg F is not the same thing as 180+ that the expert said will cause "full thickness burns" also, scald is not third degree, but first degree burns.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?