Skoorb:
The coffee case (as I said, in my opinion a widely misunderstood one), went more like this:
McDonald's, at the time, prided itself on the high temperature of its coffee. The coffee was served at 200 degrees, ~40 degrees higher than a coffeepot at home, and much hotter than there appears to be any legitimate need for (and obviously just below the boiling point). The particular franchise in question was in fact told on numerous occasions that people had burned themselves when the coffee spilled on them (this is critical from the standpoint of showing that there was a known risk). Patrons who bought the coffee at a drive-thru, like the plaintiff, were required to pull off the lid, while sitting in their cars, to put cream and sugar into the coffee.
The plaintiff was an elderly woman (as I recall she was at least 70) who had bought a cup of coffee, and when she went to remove the tightly-sealed plastic lid to put in sugar (which she more or less had to do), she lost control of the coffee and it spilled all over, giving her 2nd- and 3rd-degree burns on her thighs. As you no doubt realize, the inner thighs are quite a sensitive area, and I doubt you would enjoy having 3rd-degree burns anywhere on your body.
The trial jury in the case awarded very substantial punitive damages, which were later reduced on appeal. I seem to recall she ended up with ~$200K (but I am only going from memory). IMO, the large amount of punitive damages gave Americans the idea that the lawsuit itself was bogus, with which I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it is too bad in a way, because the notion that plaintiffs nationwide are regularly winning big awards like this is really inaccurate. Also, I strongly disagree that the plaintiff was an "idiot". IMO she was just an older person with poorer motor control than some of us; the fact of the matter is that she did nothing stupid at all.