You should also not get drunk and try to jump over a campfire; as it is also dangerous.

Gain some common sense.

This case is often cited an example of s frivolous lawsuit, and on the face of seems perfect. But when the facts are heard, it quickly becomes obvious that this is EXACTLY the kind of liability litigation that should be encouraged. It is also a perfect example of why cases should not be “tried” in the press where facts can easily be selectively dismissed by people who have something else on their agenda, like newpaper sales.

If you want to make a case against frivolous lawsuits, there are enough examples to choose from, but this is NOT one.

You mean like serving superheated beverages?

The part about the “old lady” who sued McDonalds was that she had to get a massive amount restorative surgery (e.g., skin grafts to her crotch) done on account of how hot they served the coffee. That’s the reason she was able to sue at all–because she had serious medical expenses, and since in the US we allow litigation over pain and suffering on top of demonstrated damages, in this case her medical bill.

If we get in a tizzy an excess award for the intagible component, we’re missing the point: thermometers are cheap, automatic water heaters are cheap, and it’s okay to have a gov’t mandate saying that you can’t serve coffee over x degrees, since McDonald’s already has else quantified and down to a science. Starbucks has already figured out ideal temperatures, average time before it’s “too cold” etc: McDonalds already does this with their grills (come on, they have calibrated their cooking temperatures and times to kill fecal bacteria in the meat) This isn’t an undue burden or rocket science–it’s fast food 101.