"Warning, contents may be hot"
The "may" always makes me chuckle.
That woman burned the skin off her genatalia when McDonald's served a far too hot coffee. After they refused to pay a small amount to cure her injuries (remember, no socialized health care in USA), she sued. She offered to settle, again for a small amount to cover expenses, and McDonald's refused again
McDonald's launched a massive PR campaign to mock her in order to pollute public sentiment in favor of corporations over victims, so thejury awarded $2.7 millions in punitive damages to defend the public against McDonald's brazen attack on himan society. The Judge lowered the award to $640K; and McDonald's appealed, refusing for the third time. They eventually settled for a confidential amount.
Unfortunately, the lawsuit, and the seemingly 'ridiculous-at-first-glance' nature of the headlines surrounding it, was used by several companies to push for specific tort reforms, which were mostly to the detriment of the average public.
There's more to this than "Dumbass sues company because hot coffee was hot".
Hot Coffee https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1445203/
So who's 'fault' is all this? In law you can sue for money from anybody even remotely connected with an injury. So she chose McD's instead of her grandson - no surprise. But was it right?
