cyantist wrote:

] I remember when I first heard about this case. I thought that
] the woman was over exaggerating her injury. Everything I read
] was from terrible news sources (The local Phoenix paper). It
] wasn't until recently that I discovered just how much she
] actually had to go through because of her burns. Their coffee
] really is too damn hot.

These cases (and hers in particular) are often cited as proof of over-litiguous society. But having learned a lot more about this over the years, it's a poor example. McD's coffee was being served too hot. In fact, the reason why a multi-million dollar settlement was given was because it was proven that McD's consistently served its coffee at a temperature that was dangerous or even lethal. They would typically settle with people for medical costs, but then they stopped doing that, which prompted larger suits. The coffee was being kept at boiling temps in an effort to keep health inspectors from complaining about it sitting, often for hours at a time, at cool temps. McD's tried to point the blame at health inspectors, but given their track record of trying to 'cover up' the infractions by settling claims over the years, the jury determined that they were indeed responsible for injuring their customers. The jury was quoted as saying that they felt only a large punitive judgement would get McD's to change their operating procedures and keep them from going back to small claims settlements.

So if anything, this was more the case of big company abuse of consumers than over-litiguous society.

RE: FACT SHEET: MCDONALD'S SCALDING COFFEE CASE