What's the context here?
What's the context here?
McDonald's knew that their coffee was dangerously hot and had been repeatedly warned about it, so the jury awarded punitive damages.
This doesn't even make sense—water that hot destroys the flavor of the coffee. Why do they not just make and serve the coffee at a temperature people actually expect? Is it so hard to not be an asshole to your customers?
Anyway, Starbucks also serves their coffee about as hot as McDonalds. Turns out, coffee hot enough to cause horrific injury is rather common.
So much for litigation as a way to incentivize behavior....
There was also a lot of public mockery and political grandstanding, at the time, based on a mischaracterization of the suit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...