"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
Yes, the contention is McDonalds coffee was unusually hot at 180
degrees. The National Coffee Association advises coffee be brewed
between 195-205 degrees for "optimal extraction" and then consumed
immediately.

As you can see in the chart in the next link, second and third degree
burns will almost immediately result if coffee is ingested in that
temperature range:

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/serv...ing_graph.html

(Meat measured at those temperatures is considered "well done".)

If it's not consumed immediately, the coffee should be
maintained at 180-185 degrees. Other major national coffee vendors
such as Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Burger King, and Wendys serve their
coffee at similar or higher temperatures than McDonalds. Household
coffee makers reach similar temperatures.

No, that is not correct. Typical temperatures from household coffee
makers appears to range from 140 to 165 degrees F. "Coffee from a drip
coffee maker is usually 160 to 165 degrees Farenheit and after milk or
cream is added it is consumed at 145 degrees Farenheit." (Quoted from
http://www.surferchef.com/ ) The temperature asserted at the trial for
typical temperatures were in the 140 F range.

And as you can see from the graph in the previous link, anything above
140 F risks burning the mouth.

My own coffee maker
produces coffee in a thermal carafe, no hot plate. Half an hour after
brewing began I poured a cup and checked the temperature with a meat
thermometer. It was just a needle width below 180 degrees.

I think I disagree with the contention.

Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and concluded
that it was above that which they considered a reasonable expectation.
To continue to argue their decision is to essentially contend that
either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable person" and _they_
are not or that you are in possession of facts that they were not.

Another bad analogy. The McDonalds coffee case did not involve any
product failure, no lawfully mandated or reasonably accepted standard
was exceeded

They lost the case. They violated their end of a contract, which is
selling a drinkable and reasonably safe cup of coffee.