"Jim Logajan" wrote

Look, the jury noted the facts, including multiple other injuries and
complaints regarding the temperature of McDonalds' coffee and concluded
that it was above that which they considered a reasonable expectation.
To continue to argue their decision is to essentially contend that
either _you_ are a proper example of a "reasonable person" and _they_
are not or that you are in possession of facts that they were not.

A jury can be wrong - consider the OJ case, or on the other side of the
coin, any number of prison inmates who are innocent of the crime they were
convicted of.

With that in mind, another possibility is that the jury felt bad for the
injured woman and decided to give her some of a large corporation's money,
figuring that the large corporation would hardly be affected. They made an
emotional decision rather than one based on fact, and it happens all the
time in personal injury cases (much to the delight of the plaintiffs'
lawyers).

BDS