From what I can tell your common sense is that if it sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous.

No one’s suggesting that he was trying to kill her; don’t be silly.

“If this submission be right, McDonald’s should not have served drinks at any temperature which would have caused a bad scalding injury. The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 °C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds. Thus, if McDonald’s were going to avoid the risk of injury by a deep thickness burn they would have had to have served tea and coffee at between 55 °C and 60 °C. But tea ought to be brewed with boiling water if it is to give its best flavour and coffee ought to be brewed at between 85 °C and 95 °C. Further, people generally like to allow a hot drink to cool to the temperature they prefer. Accordingly, I have no doubt that tea and coffee served at between 55 °C and 60 °C would not have been acceptable to McDonald’s customers. Indeed, on the evidence, I find that the public want to be able to buy tea and coffee served hot, that is to say at a temperature of at least 65 °C, even though they know (as I think they must be taken to do for the purposes of answering issues (1) and (2)) that there is a risk of a scalding injury if the drink is spilled.”[17]

Other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, Wendy’s and Burger King have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns.

Liebeck’s attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald’s reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald’s over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald’s policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 °C (176–194 °F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.[21] The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[24]

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous”.

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid’s temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

None of us knows the facts here, but how refreshing that the HBT jury has already decided that the purported victim is a skanky liar.

We can bemoan the litigiousness of 2012 America without denying that this woman might have gone through something pretty deeply upsetting.

Even lower than that? At some point, because the coffee temperature was a financial consideration (could make coffee less often and sell more of it at 200 than 140), that a lower damages award creates and incentive to continue to make it at 200 degrees. What if they make $100K by selling 200 degree coffee? Hmm … maybe a $50K damages award is worth the risk …

The point here is that the $400K was not to make the plaintiff whole. That’s what the medical bills award was for, so there is no need for the punitive damages award to bear a relationship to her behavior at all. It should be solely calculated to punish and deter McDonalds. Which, in this case, it did.

The jury jacked it up, and then it got knocked down because it was decided she was 20% at fault. That’s how civil cases work, as opposed to criminal. Criminal requires “Unreasonable doubt.” With Civil cases, it’s a Preponderance of the Evidence…meaning who was more at fault.

Good. Because that’s exactly what the jury found McDonalds to have done. It was established as a legal fact that 200 degree coffee was inherently dangerous. It was established that McDonalds knew this to be the case beforehand. It was established that they willingly disregarded the risk and did it anyway because they had financial reasons to do so. Then that decision contributed to an 80 year old woman getting third degree burns and needing skin grafts.

Now, if the woman is to be lambasted for ignoring a risk, why shouldn’t McDonalds?

She was not driving. She was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. Also, the vehicle was parked when the incident occurred.

So much misinformation out there about this case, and so many people like jumping on it when they know none of the details.

You would be wise to let your kneejerk assumptions here go and educate yourself.