Just out of curiosity, and speaking as an attorney, in what way was
McDonald's negligent?
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
While the McDonald's case is often held up as a "poster child" for frivolous
litigation, it really had a basis in fact, and wasn't frivolous at all.
Basically put, to save money by allowing them to use cheaper beans, and to
shorten brewing time, McDonalds brewed their coffee at a much, much higher
temperature than coffee is normally made. The 30 degrees or so of
temperature difference from normal coffee was enough to make the difference
between someone just getting scalded or a first degree burn, and someone
getting second or third-degree, full-thickness burns.
The woman in question suffered third degree burns to her crotch, requiring
skin grafts.
Now, everyone expects coffee to be hot. But you don't expect it to be SO
hot that if you spill it on yourself, you're going to be in the hospital for
3 months... and they didn't warn her it was that hot.
McD's knew that their coffee had caused injuries -- over 700 of them. They
knew that it was hotter than normal coffee. They chose to brew it that way
to save money -- KNOWING that it posed a risk to consumers.
Now, does that sound like a frivolous lawsuit? No, not to me either.
The jury award of punitive damages was excessive. But it was also reduced
by the Court... the woman got about $500,000 -- which I can tell you isn't
that much for such a horrible injury.
Know the facts before you perpetuate the myths.