>So are you telling me that the coffee they serve now won't
>burn someone?
>
>Of course it will.
>

First degree -- mild, with reddened skin, pain, and swelling

Second degree -- pain, swelling, red skin with blisters (fluid-filled sac)

Third degree -- the skin may be charred and blackened, but often painless (due to underlying nerve destruction).

Sorry, no food product should be served at a temperature as to produce third degree burns. No amount of wrangling will release any establishment from that responsibility. You claim that this issue is about responsibility and yes it is. Should one expect that their coffee is going to be "hot"? Yes. Should one expect that their coffee while althoguh "hot" ahould not be "hot" enough to produce nerve destruction? Yes. It is a food business' responsibility to provide consumable products. A product that can provide third degree burns is not consumable. The only facts of this case that matter are that the product was clearly hot enough to produce third degree burns and the company supplying the product had been warned about it repeatedly and still remained negligent.



>So will the coffee served at any establishment.
>
>So what was the point of the lawsuit?

The point of the lawsuit was someone trying to get repaid a paltry $800 in medical expenses as a result of an unsafe product.


>
>Coffee is STILL unsafe because it is too hot. If another
>old woman with slow reflexes spills it on her and can't get
>up to get it off in 20 seconds then she will still be
>burned.
>
>So what was the point of the lawsuit? The only thing I can
>see is that now it opens up the government to being sued
>because of a safe temperature ruling. Maybe I'll go order a
>cup of safe temperature coffee and spill it and let it sit
>there until I'm burned and make a few million bucks.

Go for it, but if you are going to do that willingly then it speaks poorly on your character.