The next time you talk about the "left wing liberal media", remember this

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
There's simply 2 sides to this.

1) Against McDonalds - they served the coffee at an extremely hot temperature - above regulation rules IIRC?

2) Against the woman - at the end of the day - anyone that has responsibility in life will argue that it's your fault for spilling it on yourself. It is indeed true, that your own clumsiness is the ultimate cause for the tragic events. The obvious counter argument to this, though, is that it gave her 3rd degree burns due to the extremely hot temperature.

At the end of the day, I see both sides - ultimately, McDonalds should have wrote a check for her medical bills because that was all she was asking for originally. I side with the woman only because McDonalds was stupid for not cutting their losses.

Also might just be me but I'm not seeing a video in the OP?

The jury reduced the award because they found her partially responsible for spilling it on herself.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
No competent company serves coffee to a customer that can cause a 3rd degree burn.

Full.

Stop.

Literally every coffee serving company does. This delusional thinking runs deep, I see.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
Gourmet sites aren’t the standard, it would be the local board or health or business inspectors.
If they say the coffee is too damn hot then it’s too hot. Ignore them at your own risk.

There is no law about how hot coffee should or shouldn't be.

So inspectors are irrelevant.

And again, nothing in the industry has changed. Coffee is still brewed at 195-205F and served directly after at every coffee shop in America. How much it cools down in the serving process depends on various factors but none are intentional. No coffee serving shop has a "cooling off period" for coffee. None.

Exactly fuck all has changed.

With one exception: No coffee burn lawsuit has won since. Yet nothing has changed.

The only fake news here is this video spreading the lawyer industry myth that McDonald's did anything out of the industry standard or that they affected any fucking change at all. This is a propaganda fluffer piece intended to ward off criticism for the one nationally known case of one of their ridiculous frivolous lawsuits winning.

So let's just look at the facts here shall we?

What is the ideal temp and also the industry standard (unless you want to be known for shitty coffee) to brew coffee?

195-205F. The lawyers lied.

Wfat is the ideal serving time? Directly after brewing at brewing temp. This is also the industry standard. With the serving process causing some cooling. Serving Temps average around 170 or so. Again, this is what you do unless you want to be known for shitty coffee.

Again, the lawyers lied. McDonald's was not doing anything out of the ordinary.

This was the crux of their case. And both are factually incorrect.

Fact: No company has changed and no company has a "cooling off period" for coffee.

At the end of the day, the only real fact about this case is McDonald's didn't take it seriously, did not contest any of the misconceptions presented by the plaintiff lawyers and expected a dismissal. They dropped the ball. Lesson learned and while NOTHING in the industry had changed, there hasn't been a case like this won since. Because now defense lawyers know to contest misinformation rather than sit back and count on a common sense dismissal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paladin3

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,600
11,288
136
@Amused

Since the topic has shifted from what I originally intended for it to be about with little hope of returning to the topic, I'm going to take you up on a couple of your points.

1: A Starbucks beverage manual I found through Google:
https://solutions.starbucks.com/resources/pdf/WPS_FY16_Beverage_Resource_Manual_031516.pdf
manual said:
Beverage temperature is between 150oF and 170oF (65oC and 77oC), not including Americanos.
NOTE: Standard temperature for children’s beverage is 130oF (54oC).

2: A study into preferred drinking temps :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454
study said:
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

3:
https://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperature-for-serving-coffee.html
coffeedetective said:
Coffee is best served at a temperature between 155ºF and 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC). Most people prefer it towards the higher end, at about 175ºF.

4:
https://driftaway.coffee/temperature/
driftaway said:
Always Brew Coffee Between 195°F and 205°F

...

Drinking Above 150°F: Feel the Heat
Here at Driftaway Coffee, we tend to enjoy coffee best when it is between 120°F and 140°F. Some people though (including us sometimes!), drink coffee at higher temperatures.

5:
https://www.homegrounds.co/how-hot-should-coffee-be/
And another one.

In short, I think you're throwing some pretty heavy-handed assertions around about serving temperatures without citations to back them up. While I'm not a coffee drinker, common sense tells me that serving products to customers at extreme scalding temperatures is not conducive to a fast food culture and is inherently risky, especially if you're running some kind of partial sit-in coffee drinking experience like say Starbucks, you want customers to look like they're enjoying their drink rather than looking like they just cauterized their taste buds (or something a little more sensitive), or looking like they'd like to enjoy the product served to them but they're not sure if they'll regret it.

Despite what I wrote in the OP, I'm undecided about whether coffee shops changed their policies after the McD lawsuit. It would make sense for them to keep quiet about it, given the overall situation I described of a culture of corporations wanting to smear and discourage would-be complainants.
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
Literally every coffee serving company does. This delusional thinking runs deep, I see.
No.

If you serve a customer a cup of liquid for drinking, and it can cause 3rd degree burns, then that company is negligent.

Has nothing to do with "delusional thinking", unless you used that phrase on acident.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
There is more.

The temp was not above industry standard nor above recommended brewing temps.

That kinda makes the entire basis of the case bunk.

Everyone still brews and serves coffee at those temps.

So no change in the industry except more idiot warnings. That's it. The entire case hinged on the misconception that McDonald's served their coffee at temps above the industry standard and above the recommended brewing temp. Those are both demonstrably false.

McDonald's did not take this case seriously. They got owned. Notice there hasn't been a case won like this since even though there has been an explosion in coffee houses since and all serve their coffee at the recommended brewing temps? (195 - 205f)

Edit: it should be noted that coffee poured into a cold cup at 195 is 185-175 or so by the time the pouring is done. So in reality, no coffee is served at the brewing temp as it loses a lot of heat energy in the serving process.

The entire industry still goes straight from brewing temp to serve. Exactly fuck all has changed.

Those things haven't changed because they were never what the case was really about. What has changed is that McDonalds and other companies now take their potential liabilities towards consumers seriously, and not just legally but how it could affect their brand image.
McDs lost because they arrogantly assumed that a jury comprised of consumers would agree with them that corporations should have no such liabilities towards consumers. They also assumed that publicly callous treatment of their own customers wouldn't harm their brand reputation.
They were wrong on both. But the lesson was learned throughout corporate America. It's a lot cheaper to pay out a quick settlement than to fight your own customers in court.
Although there still are some slow learners out there, like in 2010 when a jury in Colorado found against Assurant Health for $37 million for refusing in bad faith to pay $180k on a policy.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
@Amused

Since the topic has shifted from what I originally intended for it to be about with little hope of returning to the topic, I'm going to take you up on a couple of your points.

1: A Starbucks beverage manual I found through Google:
https://solutions.starbucks.com/resources/pdf/WPS_FY16_Beverage_Resource_Manual_031516.pdf


2: A study into preferred drinking temps :
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454


3:
https://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperature-for-serving-coffee.html


4:
https://driftaway.coffee/temperature/


5:
https://www.homegrounds.co/how-hot-should-coffee-be/
And another one.

In short, I think you're throwing some pretty heavy-handed assertions around about serving temperatures without citations to back them up. While I'm not a coffee drinker, common sense tells me that serving products to customers at extreme scalding temperatures is not conducive to a fast food culture and is inherently risky, especially if you're running some kind of partial sit-in coffee drinking experience like say Starbucks, you want customers to look like they're enjoying their drink rather than looking like they just cauterized their taste buds (or something a little more sensitive), or looking like they'd like to enjoy the product served to them but they're not sure if they'll regret it.

Despite what I wrote in the OP, I'm undecided about whether coffee shops changed their policies after the McD lawsuit. It would make sense for them to keep quiet about it, given the overall situation I described of a culture of corporations wanting to smear and discourage would-be complainants.

Sigh.

At what temp do you think 195F coffee is after poured into a cold cup and the few minutes pass between that and being served?

175F.

And it quickly cools after that. Probably 5F a minute or more. If you serve a 150F cup of coffee, it will drop to 130 after being poured and be luke warm in minutes.

Which is what I said all along. Which is what Starbucks and everyone else serves it at. It doesn't leave the brewer at 175. That's the temp it gets to after pouring it into a cold cup... after being brewed at 195F.

I mean, I know when making emotional arguments one tends to forget the laws of thermodynamics. But it is impossible to pour a 195F liquid through 70F air into a 70F cup and have it still be 195F.

If you CAN do that you've beaten the laws of thermodynamics, OR you are serving the coffee on a 195 degree day into a 195 degree cup.

And you have yet to show my ANY coffee house who has ANY "cooling off" period between the 195-205 brewing temp and serving. They take into account the rapid cooling that takes place during the serving process into a cold cup when stating their serving temps.

No one has adjusted their temps since. The ideal temp to brew and hold is still a MINIMUM of 195F and less than boiling. Anything less makes shitty coffee.

So let's use our heads here. Go back and read what I said. it's brewed at 195-205F. Poured into a cold cup and served. It's around 175F when the customer gets it. Colder if it's a latte or mixed with anything at all.

Nothing you posted contradicts what I said. In fact, it confirms it.

If facts are heavy handed, then I'm heavy fucking handed. It's amusing how a forum of geeks loses all intellectual ability when making emotional arguments about the one and only successful self spill hot coffee case that changed NOTHING in the industry.
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
Those things haven't changed because they were never what the case was really about. What has changed is that McDonalds and other companies now take their potential liabilities towards consumers seriously, and not just legally but how it could affect their brand image.
McDs lost because they arrogantly assumed that a jury comprised of consumers would agree with them that corporations should have no such liabilities towards consumers. They also assumed that publicly callous treatment of their own customers wouldn't harm their brand reputation.
They were wrong on both. But the lesson was learned throughout corporate America. It's a lot cheaper to pay out a quick settlement than to fight your own customers in court.
Although there still are some slow learners out there, like in 2010 when a jury in Colorado found against Assurant Health for $37 million for refusing in bad faith to pay $180k on a policy.

No, McDonald's lost because they failed to argue against the ridiculous assertions that the temps they served at were unusual, or outside the industry standards. They basically offered no defense at all other than "can you believe this shit?"

The MANY lawsuits since HAVE been defended properly with the facts I presented in this thread and none have won since, even though NOTHING has changed in the coffee industry AT ALL. Not one self spill lawsuit has won since. Even though the temps were just as high.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
No.

If you serve a customer a cup of liquid for drinking, and it can cause 3rd degree burns, then that company is negligent.

Has nothing to do with "delusional thinking", unless you used that phrase on acident.

I take it you've never taken the temp of a hot cup of straight coffee from anyplace that brews it fresh, have you?

THEY ALL DO. They all brew at 195-205 and serve it straight into a cup.

Full fucking stop.

By the time you get it, it will be 175 or so. Go ahead. Take a thermometer and try it for yourself.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/business/fi-39457_1_hot-coffee

BTW, virtually ALL food and liquid that is supposed to be served hot can cause 3rd degree burns if you sit in it for 10 minutes and don't move away from it. Good gawd man, have you never eaten Mexican or Italian food??? Both hold onto their cooking temps like CRAZY and WILL burn the crap out of you IF you dunk your privates into it and do not move it away.

That's the key here, folks, her burns were so bad because she literally stewed in the hot coffee in a bucket seat for minutes before getting help out of the car.

That same coffee if you dunked you finger would sting with no damage. But stewing in it, yeah. Anything over 165 or so degrees will do that if you sit in it long enough.

Have you ever had the roof of your mouth peel because of the Pizza being too hot? Guess what would have happened had you wrapped your private parts in that pizza? Yep. 3rd degree burns.

I'm amazed you're still alive, actually.
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
I take it you've never taken the temp of a hot cup of straight coffee from anyplace that brews it fresh, have you?

THEY ALL DO. They all brew at 195-205 and serve it straight into a cup.

Full fucking stop.

By the time you get it, it will be 175 or so. Go ahead. Take a thermometer and try it for yourself.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/business/fi-39457_1_hot-coffee

BTW, virtually ALL food and liquid that is supposed to be served hot can cause 3rd degree burns if you sit in it for 10 minutes and don't move away from it. Good gawd man, have you never eaten Mexican or Italian food??? Both hold onto their cooking temps like CRAZY and WILL burn the crap out of you IF you dunk your privates into it and do not move it away.

That's the key here, folks, her burns were so bad because she literally stewed in the hot coffee in a bucket seat for minutes before getting help out of the car.

That same coffee if you dunked you finger would sting with no damage. But stewing in it, yeah. Anything over 165 or so degrees will do that if you sit in it long enough.


Have you ever had the roof of your mouth peel because of the Pizza being too hot? Guess what would have happened had you wrapped your private parts in that pizza? Yep. 3rd degree burns.

I'm amazed you're still alive, actually.


At 140 degrees hot water from a tap can cause a third degree burn in 5 seconds. What caused the extent of her burns was not sitting in the seat for minutes it was because she was wearing cotton sweatpants which immediately soaked through and both spread the liquid and kept it next to her skin so she couldn't brush it off. I believe that about 16% of her body was affected and it happened in seconds, not minutes.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
No, McDonald's lost because they failed to argue against the ridiculous assertions that the temps they served at were unusual, or outside the industry standards. They basically offered no defense at all other than "can you believe this shit?"

The MANY lawsuits since HAVE been defended properly with the facts I presented in this thread and none have won since, even though NOTHING has changed in the coffee industry AT ALL. Not one self spill lawsuit has won since. Even though the temps were just as high.
A link to one of these many lawsuits?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
At 140 degrees hot water from a tap can cause a third degree burn in 5 seconds. What caused the extent of her burns was not sitting in the seat for minutes it was because she was wearing cotton sweatpants which immediately soaked through and both spread the liquid and kept it next to her skin so she couldn't brush it off. I believe that about 16% of her body was affected and it happened in seconds, not minutes.

She sat in it for minutes. She was not able to immediately get up. She was not able to immediately remove her pants.

And none of this changes the fact that the industry changed nothing because nothing needed to be changed. That's how coffee, and food, is served. Fresh and hot from the oven/brewer.

This case is singular for a reason. And that reason is not because McDs or anyone else changed anything.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,536
16,306
146
A link to one of these many lawsuits?

Show me a successful self spill lawsuit that was not blamed on faulty cups/lids, but on temp only.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Ever wonder why the only one you hear about is the Stella case?

Hmmmmm....
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Show me a successful self spill lawsuit that was not blamed on faulty cups/lids, but on temp only.

I don't have to prove a negative.

Ever wonder why the only one you hear about is the Stella case?

Hmmmmm....
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove a claim you made.

"The MANY lawsuits since HAVE been defended properly with the facts I presented in this thread and none have won since, even though NOTHING has changed in the coffee industry AT ALL. Not one self spill lawsuit has won since. Even though the temps were just as high."
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
I take it you've never taken the temp of a hot cup of straight coffee from anyplace that brews it fresh, have you?

THEY ALL DO. They all brew at 195-205 and serve it straight into a cup.

Full fucking stop.

By the time you get it, it will be 175 or so. Go ahead. Take a thermometer and try it for yourself.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/business/fi-39457_1_hot-coffee

BTW, virtually ALL food and liquid that is supposed to be served hot can cause 3rd degree burns if you sit in it for 10 minutes and don't move away from it. Good gawd man, have you never eaten Mexican or Italian food??? Both hold onto their cooking temps like CRAZY and WILL burn the crap out of you IF you dunk your privates into it and do not move it away.

That's the key here, folks, her burns were so bad because she literally stewed in the hot coffee in a bucket seat for minutes before getting help out of the car.

That same coffee if you dunked you finger would sting with no damage. But stewing in it, yeah. Anything over 165 or so degrees will do that if you sit in it long enough.

Have you ever had the roof of your mouth peel because of the Pizza being too hot? Guess what would have happened had you wrapped your private parts in that pizza? Yep. 3rd degree burns.

I'm amazed you're still alive, actually.
Blah blah blah!

3rd Degree burns ruled as negligence is irrelevant because YOU SAY SO!!!1111111111!!!1111!!!!

Get a grip, dumbfuck.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
She sat in it for minutes. She was not able to immediately get up. She was not able to immediately remove her pants.

And none of this changes the fact that the industry changed nothing because nothing needed to be changed. That's how coffee, and food, is served. Fresh and hot from the oven/brewer.

This case is singular for a reason. And that reason is not because McDs or anyone else changed anything.

And she was burned within seconds not minutes.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,600
11,288
136
Sigh.

At what temp do you think 195F coffee is after poured into a cold cup and the few minutes pass between that and being served?

175F.

And it quickly cools after that. Probably 5F a minute or more. If you serve a 150F cup of coffee, it will drop to 130 after being poured and be luke warm in minutes.

However in those days a McDs coffee went into a polystyrene-type cup, probably more ideal for keeping liquids warm while travelling (isn't that what they line thermos flasks with because it's rather a good insulator? That would be in line with McD's initial assertion: )

wiki said:
McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2]

While I vaguely remember my first science experiment in secondary school, I don't remember the figures and we worked in Celsius, so, citation for your figures? For it going into the same kind of cup that McDonalds used in that era?

You've also claimed that she sat in it for minutes; that she wasn't able to move. Citation? That's just aside from the fact that her son was in the car with her, are you going to suggest that he watched her and did nothing for minutes too while she screamed? Yes, I suspect he would have been in shock for a small period of time, but even 30 seconds is a long time to watch your own mother screaming.

Here's what wiki has to say:
wikipedia said:
On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck 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.[10] Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[11]

So let me summarise your argument:

1 - We agree that the brewing temp is 190-205F (even though you prefer to stick to 195F for... reasons). Your first claim is that it will drop to 170F as a result of being poured into a cup.

2 - You then claimed that it will be delayed 4 minutes (5F per minute) before reaching the customer at 150F, and then inexplicably dropping dropping another 20F as a result of being poured (how has it been cooling up to that point then?).

wikipedia said:
During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C)

3 - You asked for me to provide sources (to support an assertion that I didn't make) that any "cooling off before serving" policies are in effect.

4 - You then claimed to Vic that they serve it immediately.

5 - You then claimed that she sat while getting burnt for minutes, throwing her own safety and pain avoidance instincts to the winds, and her son watched her while she screamed for minutes and did nothing to help her.

Seriously, find a tune and stick to it, and once you've done that, patch up the obvious holes in your assertions.

Furthermore:
wikipedia said:
and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's

Do you honestly think that McD's would let such a claim go by unchallenged, or that the plaintiff's lawyers wouldn't have sources ready to back their claim?
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,085
146
There's simply 2 sides to this.

1) Against McDonalds - they served the coffee at an extremely hot temperature - above regulation rules IIRC?

2) Against the woman - at the end of the day - anyone that has responsibility in life will argue that it's your fault for spilling it on yourself. It is indeed true, that your own clumsiness is the ultimate cause for the tragic events. The obvious counter argument to this, though, is that it gave her 3rd degree burns due to the extremely hot temperature.

At the end of the day, I see both sides - ultimately, McDonalds should have wrote a check for her medical bills because that was all she was asking for originally. I side with the woman only because McDonalds was stupid for not cutting their losses.

Also might just be me but I'm not seeing a video in the OP?

That's why there was a trial, wherein it was determined that one perspective (side) outweighed the other, and was due restitution because of repeated, documented, gross negligence (stemming from previous lawsuits) from the other side (this was actually crucial to the case which, if you had any familiarity with, you wouldn't have made the stupid "2 sides" comment)

This is why we have courts, you know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
The McDonald's coffee case was an anomaly. The jury didn't like the McDonald's witnesses, who came across as arrogant.

Unfortunately the large award she got, which most people to this day do not know was substantially reduced, had a major impact on public opinion - and future jury pools - regarding injury plaintiffs. The interesting aspect of the OP's article is how McDonald's and other corporations took advantage of it to turn people against injury claimants. This is because most people are stupid enough to base their opinions on a single case, even one which is atypical. Anecdotes matter more to people than real data.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Show me a successful self spill lawsuit that was not blamed on faulty cups/lids, but on temp only.
....

While I agree with your assessment of the merits of this case, to be fair on this particular point, since everyone heard about this case, I wouldn't expect any other coffee spill cases to be winners. That lawsuit damaged all injury plaintiff's everywhere. Coffee spill plaintiffs will never have a chance again, even if somehow they actually had a decent case.
 

Josephus312

Senior member
Aug 10, 2018
586
172
71
It's clear you haven't watched the video. She wasn't driving, she wasn't the driver, and the car was parked.

But you've provided a living example of why I started this thread, that McDonalds was helped in their aim of pulling off a huge piece of fake news about this case and that the obviously not mostly left-wing liberal media lapped it up instead of investigating its veracity and even helped them make up more BS.

You are correct, I didn't watch the video and I don't really fucking care to either. If someone doesn't get "coffee is hot" then they shouldn't be allowed to order hot drinks anywhere, they shouldn't even be allowed out in public without a supervisor.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
Here's a project:

Make coffee or buy coffee from any coffee house.

Sit in a car bucket seat.

Pour the coffee in your lap within minutes of getting it. Do not move for 10 minutes.

I don't care where you buy your coffee, you'll have 3rd degree burns.

The McDonald's lawsuit was a joke. McDonald's didn't take it seriously.

Nothing, and I mean nothing in the industry has changed, with the exception of more idiot warnings.

Coffee is still ideally brewed at 195-205F. Coffee is still ideally served directly after brewing. By the time it's been poured in a cold cup and served it is 185-175F. Which, BTW, is the ideal serving temp.

Feel free to educate yourself on coffee. Look up any gourmet coffee site. Check their recommended temps.
Isn't this why coffee is no longer served in Styrofoam cups? You can feel the heat through the paper cups with cardboard sleeve so you can realize how hot it is.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,817
136
I take it you've never taken the temp of a hot cup of straight coffee from anyplace that brews it fresh, have you?

THEY ALL DO. They all brew at 195-205 and serve it straight into a cup.

Full fucking stop.

By the time you get it, it will be 175 or so. Go ahead. Take a thermometer and try it for yourself.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/business/fi-39457_1_hot-coffee

BTW, virtually ALL food and liquid that is supposed to be served hot can cause 3rd degree burns if you sit in it for 10 minutes and don't move away from it. Good gawd man, have you never eaten Mexican or Italian food??? Both hold onto their cooking temps like CRAZY and WILL burn the crap out of you IF you dunk your privates into it and do not move it away.

That's the key here, folks, her burns were so bad because she literally stewed in the hot coffee in a bucket seat for minutes before getting help out of the car.

That same coffee if you dunked you finger would sting with no damage. But stewing in it, yeah. Anything over 165 or so degrees will do that if you sit in it long enough.

Have you ever had the roof of your mouth peel because of the Pizza being too hot? Guess what would have happened had you wrapped your private parts in that pizza? Yep. 3rd degree burns.

I'm amazed you're still alive, actually.
So you think it'll cool 20 degrees pouring into a cold cup, but stay hot enough to cause burns for minutes after being poured onto cold pants and vastly increasing its surface area? The damage was done in seconds, not minutes, regardless of how long she ended up sitting in it.

I understand disagreeing with the results, but generally you're pretty level headed, why of all things is this thread hitting your emotional button?