i dont think you are right. alton brown taught me about superheating water and the conditions needed to do it. i am pretty sure the introduction of coffee into pure superheated water would screw it up. i doubt super-heated coffee has existed in the history of the world. so yes, water can be superheated, but the introduction of coffee would break up the molecular situation that allowed the superheating, and the water could not remain superheated, i think there would be a massive amount of steam, and the water would virtually instantly cool to below 212, the same way i believe introducing a snowflake into supercooled water will flash freeze it.
You have control of your bite size and chewing capacity, not Hardees. Hardees would have to shove it down your throat to be liable. If Hardees sells you a burger that can cause 3rd degree burns, they would be liable.
So, by stating you could say that for practically any cup of coffee, you are saying that the McDonald's coffee is indistinguishable from other restaurants at the surface. I wonder what other restaurant's coffee would do if poured on a crotch for 90 seconds? (again reference that nice chart I posted yesterday) The McDonalds attorney should have paid some homeless dudes and run an experiment. I believe 3rd degree burns would quite possibly be the norm.
because brewing at 205 degrees might taste better according to some peeps. and maybe the flavor degrades over time and they want the coffee as fresh (meaning hot) as possible. this just isnt a question we should be answering. if mcdonalds wants to sell cups of boiling water or even molten lava, thats fine. the consumer purchasing lava or coffee or anything are the ones who decide if they want it.
superheated water can. coffee cannot. you can prevent the production of superheated water by introducing foreign objects into it. alton brown recommends using a wooden skewer when boiling water in the microwave.
If that were the case, it would have been presented in the trial & would have seriously damaged the old lady's case. Being that it wasn't introduced, I have to assume it's not true. But just to indulge you, if it were the case - I believe a jury would be hard pressed to find McDonalds negligent.
From my wonderful chart I found on the internets yesterday... Maybe Mickey D's has some crappy lawyers, or the jury was made up of idiots.
This wasn't presented in the case. If the argument could be made, which I don't think it could, it would aid them. The fact that nobody could drink the coffee as hot as they served it still provides substantial reason to question any competitive advantage argument. So how can you tell at what point it is safe to spill on yourself or to drink? There's no way to know exactly how hot it is (in usual circumstances) or to realize at what point it is safe.
