No, I think it's a bit humorous because coffee is and always has been widely known and accepted to be served piping hot, often near boiling. Same with tea and mate. If you order a pot of tea from any decent shop or restaurant, it will be served full of freshly boiled water. The closer to boiling the better. Do you think all teapots should have big warnings enameled on their sides as well? Should all knives have "WARNING: SHARP" engraved on the blades?
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.
To add context, the original awarded amount was calculated to be the revenue of a single day of coffee sales for McDonald's. Stella Liebeck had originally sued for ~$50,000, to cover the cost of her medical bills, which McDonald's refused to do. Additionally, the award was calculated at that amount as a punitive measure, because McDonald's had received hundreds of complaints from customers of the coffee being too hot, which it summarily ignored. The coffee had been a problem; McDonald's just didn't care.
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".
McDonalds had received a few hundred complaints out of 10 billion cups of coffee served. The temperature of the coffee was not a problem; it was, and still is, the temperature at which all good coffee shops and restaurants serve coffee, including McDonalds. If you go get coffee at McDonalds (or Starbucks or pretty much anywhere else) it will be served to you at around 80 deg C, and sometimes even higher. This temperature is recommended by professional coffee associations [1], and it's the temperature at which any decent coffee machines holds your coffee.
It sucks that Stella Liebeck was injured. Nobody deserves that. But she was burned because she squeezed a cup of hot coffee between her legs while she messed with the lid. This is, by any reasonable criteria, an abuse of the product, and protecting a few people from such foolish choices would mean depriving everyone else of decent coffee. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet.
No, the coffee was not far too hot. It was served within the temperature range that was, and still is, recommended by professional coffee associations like the NCA [1]. Most good coffee establishments serve coffee in the range of 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Yes, all temperatures in that range present a burn hazard. I have trouble believing that a reasonable person would assume it's safe to put a newly-served cup of hot coffee between their legs and take the lid off, which is what poor Stella did.
Nobody like to remember that folks went there because the coffee was extra hot.
She didn't get burned because McD's served hot coffee - she'd been drinking that for years? She got burned because just as she took the top off to put in sugar, her grandson gunned the motor and spilled it.
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?
Uh, it was McDonald's fault, as proven by the several legal battles this woman won. This continuous questioning of settled arguments is absurd. They served the woman boiling hot coffee - it's simply not drinkable or safe to handle at that temperature (and shouldn't even have been brewed over 180...)
You're not a coffee drinker are you? :) The optimum brewing temperature for coffee is 200 deg F (94 deg C), plus or minus a few degrees. This is the range recommended by professional coffee associations such as NCA and SCAA [1], and is the range used by pretty everyone, from Starbucks to your local diner. The NCA recommends that coffee be served at around 80 deg C (which is what burned Stella Liebeck); this is a perfectly reasonable service temperature, widely used by most good coffee shops and restaurants, including McDonalds to this day.
The "settled arguments", as you say, were questionable to begin with, and businesses continue to struggle with how to balance decent coffee service and protection from frivolous lawsuits. But the only thing that's really changed since Stella's lawsuit is the addition of warnings on coffee cups, just in case anyone else decides it's a good idea to squeeze a cup of hot coffee between their legs while they fiddle with the top.
Yet she had handled it before, as had millions of other people. No, this was a case of 'who can I sue to get paid for my injury', which is an epidemic these days. That's also well known, and its disengenous (and massively naieve) to assume that winning a legal battle means you are in the right
I believe if you are recieved dangerously hot beverages(that could melt your skin) where there is no context to expect the beverage could harm you, and are injured from it, then it shouldn’t be your fault. If I ask for a glass of water from a restaurant, should I handle the glass of water as if it could give me frostbite? What if they handed me super cooled water that damaged my hand as I accidentally touched the surface as I ate food? How can it be my fault when there is no reasonable danger to be aware of?