Lawsuit 'Discriminatory' Gluten-Free Menu
Options
Replies
-
NJGamerChick wrote: »I believe it's uh... tamari that traditionally does not include wheat in the process, so is "safe". All of my tamari at home does carry a GF logo though.
Yes, Tamari is the style, but the label from Kikkoman doesn't state it is Tamari on the front label. This GF stuff, it's maddening I tell you!
Yeah, they like to sneak gluten into the damndest stuff. I had to throw out or give away a lot of seasoning mixes. I pretty much stripped my pantry bare after the diagnosis.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »You never see Canadians out there suing places. I accidentally had boiling hot water spilled on my hand at a coffee shop, had a big scar for years, and I didn't go suing anyone over an accident. Has anyone sued Starbucks over charging more for soy or lactose-free milk too? I stopped ordering lattes after they revoked the free milk surcharge for Starbucks card holders, but I didn't go crying about it.
The coffee case is one of those that is really misunderstood. McDonalds had over 700 cases of burns and held their coffee at a much higher temp then recommended which caused the lady (who was sitting in a non moving vehicle) to get 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body. If the store had held the coffee at the correct temperature no burns woudl have happened. She originally asked for $20k but was awarded more in punitive damages by the jury, although the final amount was greatly reduced. For comparison, Tim Hortons (in Canada) was sued for $2 million (awarded $70K) over hot potato soup burns. (Laflamme c. Groupe TDL ltée, 2014 QCCS 312)
Canada doesn’t get a free pass, there are plenty of bad lawsuits out there all over. Less actaully go to court than you think though, anyone can file, but most are dismissed early on.
You are an idiot if you order a HOT coffee and then spill it and sue because it's HOT.
HA HA HA HA
see- two people on MFP agree.
She's an idiot.
Clearly we are right.
I seriously discussed this (argued?!) this with my husband the other night. I'm with you. Spill hot coffee in your lap, it's your own damn fault, regardless of whether the company kept it at a higher than normal temperature.
0 -
chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
I did just read it now.
The coffee the woman was served was 82-88C, not 160C. Hardly "above boiling".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Burn_incident
"Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C)."
You do realize that water cannot go above boiling temperature, unless it is in a pressurized environment? As soon as you open a tap of a vessel containing water above 100C, all you will get out of it is steam, even if it's completely filled with liquid water.
Science people. Take a beginners course on thermodynamics.0 -
all over a dollar haha0
-
ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
They DO put warnings on things. The reason why they're there is because people like this lady did something that they knew they shouldn't do, got hurt (or killed) and now there's a warning label on it.
Pretty sure the whole reason the label on a hairdrier warns you not to use it while bathing is because someone did. And died. And sued. And won. Pretty sure EVERYONE knows that electricity + Water = very, very, very bad outcome.
0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »ErikThaRed wrote: »
right- so why should you get paid a boat load of money for doing something that everyone does and it's considered something stupid.Almost everyone has spilled a drink on themselves at some point or another.
-
Also- we ALL know- those thin cups- if you squeeze them hard- with no lid- they collapse- and coffee spills out.
IT WAS BETWEEN HER LEGS.
no.sympathy.
I feel like that's an instant- no duh.
Just because you and I know that doesn't mean that all people know that. Honestly, they need to warn people. I don't agree with frivolous law suits like the OP, but for things that have the potential to cause injury, they need to put a warning on it.
They DO put warnings on things. The reason why they're there is because people like this lady did something that they knew they shouldn't do, got hurt (or killed) and now there's a warning label on it.
Pretty sure the whole reason the label on a hairdrier warns you not to use it while bathing is because someone did. And died. And sued. And won. Pretty sure EVERYONE knows that electricity + Water = very, very, very bad outcome.
did their ghost sue? (I'm just kidding)
People have to make things idiot proof to protect themselves unfortunately.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »liekewheeless wrote: »Someone may have already mentioned this but the outcome here will most likely not be a reduction in the price for gluten free meals weather she wins or not. They will probably pull all gluten free items before eating the difference in cost.
There was a similar impact at a chain restaurant that provided full nutritional info. Someone sued them saying it was incorrect and made them fat... so they just decided they didn't want the liability. Now there's no more nutritional info available on their website.
Yes! I like that result, honestly.
It was probably the right thing to do anyhow... though a chain restaurant, they prepare food by hand and I cannot imagine they are particularly consistent with quantities of things that are typically added "to taste" or used as garnishes and sauces. The numbers were probably largely meaningless.
They are, the variables are unreal, I learned that my first week in the food industry. It's fine to get the numbers, but any legitimate chain would at best be within 50% plus or minus of their posted numbers.
Do you really want to try to do anything with data like that?
I know...I'm always wondering about that myself when cooking. Do these numbers mean anything? Even if I know what I put in, how much fat did I render off that duck breast? How much olive oil is ON my sauteed veggies and how much is really just left in the pan. I have a hard time logging for this same reason. Seems only useful with packaged and processed foods, or simple things I eat raw and weigh.
At home I log full value of everything, if something is rendered off or left in the pan, bonus. .
That's really tough when you're on a razor edge of weight loss - at my weight and bf percentage, I don't want to accidentally eat too little. Especially if I'm working to improve athletic performance at the same time. It can be a bit of a challenge... and you just have to adjust based on experience.
I'll generally find a way to use the rendered or left behind fats, so I'm eating the full value of what I'm logging. For example, starchy veg is great to act as a repository for errant oils. With enough bacon fat, you can make even mashed cauliflower taste good.
I strain that stuff, save it, and bake cookies with it. Believe you me, it doesn't go to waste!
0 -
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f.
I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
According to documentation on the lawsuit, the reason why she got third degree burns was a combination of the (obviously) hot coffee, and the fact that she was wearing cotton sweats. Cotton absorbs water, then sticks to your skin. That's why she had such long exposure to the intense heat.
Her attorney argued that coffee should be served at a temp no higher than 140F (60C), which, any coffee drinker would say, is too cold.
If any restaurant were to brew their coffee at 82C (The ideal brewing temperature for coffee) then had it cool to 60C before serving it to a customer, occasionally you will end up waiting 20 minutes for the carafe to cool enough to be allowed to serve to customers. Who is going to wait for that?0 -
Let alone drink lukewarm coffee?chivalryder wrote: »HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
According to documentation on the lawsuit, the reason why she got third degree burns was a combination of the (obviously) hot coffee, and the fact that she was wearing cotton sweats. Cotton absorbs water, then sticks to your skin. That's why she had such long exposure to the intense heat.
Her attorney argued that coffee should be served at a temp no higher than 140F (60C), which, any coffee drinker would say, is too cold.
If any restaurant were to brew their coffee at 82C (The ideal brewing temperature for coffee) then had it cool to 60C before serving it to a customer, occasionally you will end up waiting 20 minutes for the carafe to cool enough to be allowed to serve to customers. Who is going to wait for that?
Hot or iced only!
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
And if you've ever made hand pulled mozzarella you'd know ~140F isn't scalding hot0 -
Well, seasoning mixes are just asking for it.NJGamerChick wrote: »I believe it's uh... tamari that traditionally does not include wheat in the process, so is "safe". All of my tamari at home does carry a GF logo though.
Yes, Tamari is the style, but the label from Kikkoman doesn't state it is Tamari on the front label. This GF stuff, it's maddening I tell you!
Yeah, they like to sneak gluten into the damndest stuff. I had to throw out or give away a lot of seasoning mixes. I pretty much stripped my pantry bare after the diagnosis.
Make your own and you get customizability and none of the silly additives.
0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
And if you've ever made hand pulled mozzarella you'd know ~140F isn't scalding hot
Yup, I stopped that though, all that work for something as soft as a baseball? No way.0 -
HardcoreP0rk wrote: »
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause severeburns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Meats that I temp at 140F don't come close to burning anything on my body. I handle them with bare hands. I brew coffee at 180F, and drink it pretty shortly after. For the coffee to do that to her - requires a combination of contact time (trapped in her lap and held close to her skin by clothing) and VERY hot water. If I remember the lawsuit...I feel like they had only asked McD to take the temp from 190 down to 176 or something like that. I remember hearing the number and thinking "yea, that sounds about right" based on what I brew at home.
And if you've ever made hand pulled mozzarella you'd know ~140F isn't scalding hot
Yup, I stopped that though, all that work for something as soft as a baseball? No way.
This turns out well, but is a PIA
http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/burrata0 -
I can't even get mozzarella right... burrata? I'd cut someone in frustration.0
-
We've all probably worked in retail at some time or another and therefore we all know the answer: people hate being wrong.
I work at a paint store and we've had cases of our customers putting the wrong paint on their client's house and saying it's our fault for no other reason than that we sold them the paint.
The hot coffee lawsuit could have been avoided by the woman not putting the cup between her legs. But I've always been told never to do that, as my cousin was burned in this way at only four years old. By coffee brewed at home.
Was the woman wrong for putting the coffee between her legs? Absolutely. Does she want to look dumb? Absolutely not.
Maybe she did just want her medical bills covered at first, and that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that she got a lawyer and sued the whole damn company for something that could have happened to anyone, BUT DIDN'T. Why didn't it? Because there is an assumption of risk when drinking hot beverages, and the rest of us are smart enough to assume that risk with precaution.0 -
I'm going to sue AB Inbev next time I do something stupid when drunk.0
-
I'm going to sue AB Inbev next time I do something stupid when drunk.
I'm going to get all of my smoking friends and co-workers to sue all the convenience stores and cigarette companies for selling them cigarettes. They're going to die from it, after all. I believe that's grounds for suing.0 -
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
I think it was!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause 3rd degree burns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
Water turns into a gas state at 212F at sea level. 406F water is not a possibility in the normal world.
BTW, we all know coffee is hot, like we all know that a steaming bowl of soup is hot. We also know there is implied risk in most if not all actions.
Right now I have a cup of hot coffee sitting next to my laptop, which if I spill it will destroy my computer. Let's not even discuss what it would do to my legs, since I'm just wearing chonies. (My office, my rules.)
Haha sure, but it's not that hot. It's really not their brewing temp that was a problem, but their holding temp was.
Since I like to brew at 190F, and hold for 4 minutes in a range between 185 and 190F, I have my temp gauge right here.
173F. That's hot. I know not to drink it right now.
The old lady wouldn't have had a temperature gauge with her though.
.... and? You touch something, the outside of it is hot. So the smartest thing to do is stick it between your legs and squeeze? She's old, she probably has learned more lessons about don't eff with hot stuff than I have.
I do stupid stuff all the time, but I've never done that.
I think you may be forgetting that a high percentage of older folk don't actually have sensitive nerves in their skin any more to be able to sense temperatures, especially in their hands. I have an aunt who could comfortably hold a hot frying pan (pain wise) but it would still burn the crap out of her hands.0 -
Are you saying the water was between 356 and 406f?chivalryder wrote: »I'm finding it hilarious about the number of people defending the coffee woman about the water being "superheated."
Does anyone realize that coffee NEEDS to be brewed at 80-95C (176-203F) for it to brew properly? Water at 60C would burn skin in 2 seconds. At 70C, less than a second. At 80C, you're talking second degree burns in less than a second.
Don't even get me started on tea, which NEEDS to be brewed at boiling (water doesn't get any hotter outside of a compressed environment) for most herbal teas, otherwise you don't get the full flavour.
Are you all saying that you want your coffee and tea from restaurants to taste bad, or do you want them to brew it and wait 10 minutes before giving it to you, so it can cool down to a point where it won't burn you??
You all need to grow up and get some common sense.
I don't think you've read the court case... or you would know that the coffee was brewed at about double that temperature. ABOVE boiling, I might add. Significantly above boiling. Not only was it brewed at an insane temp, it was mandated in corporate policy to be MAINTAINED at that temperature. So yes, she should have won that case and she DID win that case.
chivalryrider - green tea is best at 180f. I swear this, I have experimented!
I think it was!
EDIT - nope I'm not right. It was 190F. 140F would cause 3rd degree burns in your mouth and throat and is not fit for human consumption. Either way, definitely not the old woman's fault. It shouldn't be served that.
Water turns into a gas state at 212F at sea level. 406F water is not a possibility in the normal world.
BTW, we all know coffee is hot, like we all know that a steaming bowl of soup is hot. We also know there is implied risk in most if not all actions.
Right now I have a cup of hot coffee sitting next to my laptop, which if I spill it will destroy my computer. Let's not even discuss what it would do to my legs, since I'm just wearing chonies. (My office, my rules.)
Haha sure, but it's not that hot. It's really not their brewing temp that was a problem, but their holding temp was.
Since I like to brew at 190F, and hold for 4 minutes in a range between 185 and 190F, I have my temp gauge right here.
173F. That's hot. I know not to drink it right now.
The old lady wouldn't have had a temperature gauge with her though.
.... and? You touch something, the outside of it is hot. So the smartest thing to do is stick it between your legs and squeeze? She's old, she probably has learned more lessons about don't eff with hot stuff than I have.
I do stupid stuff all the time, but I've never done that.
I think you may be forgetting that a high percentage of older folk don't actually have sensitive nerves in their skin any more to be able to sense temperatures, especially in their hands. I have an aunt who could comfortably hold a hot frying pan (pain wise) but it would still burn the crap out of her hands.
Dude, you're just fishing for excuses and edge cases. No. Just... no. If you're so retarded that you can't tell what hot is, go live in a padded room where everything is covered in bubble wrap.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions