I've heard you say this before, Jose, but never understood it. In
your opinion, what merit was there in a woman winning a lawsuit
against McDonalds because she burned herself on hot coffee?

You need to look at the specifics of the case. There is hot, and there
is HOT. She reasonably expected hot, but was served HOT.

Had she spilled hot coffee, she would have learned to be more careful,
but she would not have had extensive injuries. She spilled HOT coffee,
which caused extensive injuries.

The difference between hot and HOT was very significant in this
particular case. Just for jollies, you can test the concept yourself
with pool water. The difference between 79 degree water and 82 degree
water is surprisingly easy to tell. In the McD case, there was a TWENTY
degree difference, at a temperature in which single degrees cause much
greater increase in injury.

Further, McDonalds had been warned repeatedly (I think there had even
been prior incidents) that their coffee was TOO HOT and chose to serve
it that way anyway, knowing that it could easily cause unexpected
injuries. It could reasonably be argued that this hidden danger was
reckless disregard for human safety.

Since nobody likes lawyers and the problems they cause, it does make an
attractive flag to rally around ("stupid person spills coffee and blames
McD") because nobody can argue the opposite case without studying the
details.

Since there are so many stupid (IMHO) judgements, the good judgements
that look stupid on the surface get thrown into the same bin. And (lest
we tar lawyers unfairly for this), it is the job of the lawyer to be
persuasive - and the job of the other lawyer to do the same. The
JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge. (Sometimes a jury).

THAT is where the problem is.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.