McDonald's wasn't just serving "hot" coffee. It was undrinkably hot and they knew that it could and was causing numerous significant injuries.
Also, another perspective is this.
A person buys a coffee at McDonald's and is severly burnt. He goes to the hospital where he requires $200k of medical care, which is provided without payment as required of the hospital. After the fact, the hospital wants to recover its money. The man does not have the money and is 'judgment proof.'
Anyone who thinks these lawsuits are crazy please answer this question:
Who, between McDonald's and the hospital, should bear the loss?
McDonald's has control over the product and knew that it was capable of and in fact was causing these injuries. It could take any number of steps to avoid the harm including obviously serving hot coffee which is not so prone to causing severe injuries. It could also insure against losses. The hospital has no control over the product and is not in a position to avoid the harm.
Bigger picture, if the hospital bears the loss, that means that hospital users (or taxpayers) pay the cost through either higher fees for other services or taxes. If McDonald's bears the loss, McDonald's customers pay the cost via higher prices. Of these 2 groups, McDonald's customers are the better choice for paying extra because they are the specific class of people that are protected/compensated for this harm. If the hospital users/taxpayers pay more, you've just shifted a loss and the associated higher costs/taxes to a group that that really isn't benefiting. Sure McDonald's coffee drinkers use the hospital and pay taxes, but as a class they're getting cheaper, safer coffee at the expense of a lot of non-McDonald's coffee drinking hospital users/taxpayers.
Sorry Andy, my world is logic driven:
1. Coffee IS hot... anyone with any brain function knows that it could burn you - how badly is irrelevant in my opinion because...
2. Very few people enjoy being burned, period
3. Sticking a cup, even a solid cup, between one's legs/knees is not an intelligent way to handle potentially burning material... a styro cup... you get what you deserve
4. There are two people in the car and, is at a stop as claimed, logic says the safe thing to do was have one hod the coffe whilst the other pen the creamer/sugar or whatever
An individual used lack of good judgement in handliing a substance that is obviously hot so she gets a break based on... "I knew it could burnme but geesh this is too much, my ignorance should be duly rewarded/compensated.
Who is responsible? The fool who acted stupidly.
Greg:
Sorry, but you are being very ignorant about the entire suit.
Did you know that McDonald's was brewing the coffee at that temperature to save minuscule (READ: Pennies) amount of drip out of the beans per pot (and these ain't no small pots) and that they kept ether at those unreasonable temps to serve to customers so they could pass on the saved pennies?
And that the brass at mickey d's knew the coffee was UNSAFELY scalding hot (the lady burnt had 2nd and 3rd degree--flesh being burned off her-burns) but continued to sell and serve the coffee at those unsafe temps to save what amounted to MILLIONS of dollars for the company?
Yep.
Also, I believe the suit was settled for actual medical plus a little pain and suffering. The big money that came out of the suit was the jury punishing big corporate mcdonald's for squeezing money out of the consumer by brewing and serving an unsafe beverage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants