> > Now there are some of these things that I do have to agree with on some points. The person who sued McDonalds because their coffee was so hot it scalded her for life, for example, was understandable.
>
> Yeah. Who'd ever expect McDonald's to serve *hot* coffee? I mean, it *should* be tepid enough that you can pour it over yourself, right?
>
> winter"Dumbest ruling ever"mute

The elderly woman in question received third degree burns on her groin and thighs, underwent several skin-graft operations, and has permanent scarring over 15 percent of her body. Her medical bills were over $20,000. According to ConsumerRights.net, McDonald's coffee at the time was 20 degrees hotter than the industry standard, despite several hundreds of previous reports about the overly hot coffee and a request from a burn institute to lower the temperature due to numerous burns they've treated.

Also from consumerrights.net:

"McDonald's representatives lied to the court and jury about the existence of [700 similar claims of coffee burns]. A jury reduced the original verdict of $200,000 to $160,000 for contributory negligence - Liebeck spilled it on herself.

"Based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million.

"A judge later reduced the $2.7 million jury award to $480,000. McDonald's later settled the case for an undisclosed amount, requesting the deal be kept sealed."

-FP