> > > > 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.
>
> Was this given in justification of the legitimacy of the lawsuit?

Actually, this was in response to wintermute's sarcastic "Yeah. Who'd ever expect McDonald's to serve *hot* coffee?" comment. Like thousands, possibly millions, he probably thinks all that happened is some lady spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds for $27.9 million.

-FP