Criticizing the system based on the McDonald's case is a fallacy. The
reason it got so much attention is because it was an abberant result,
at least as far as the jury verdict. The judge reduced the damages
substantialy, which shows one of the safeguards that the system has.
They are not perfect, but they usually work. There will always be a
bad result every once in awhile; e.g., O.J.'s criminal trial and any
number of others. Can you name any human system that doesn't screw up
once in awhile? You need to realize that there are literally tens of
thousand verdicts or court decisions each year. In almost every case
at least half the participants feel that the outcome was wrong. The
fact that there seems to be some disagreement among the members of
this newsgroup shows that the answer is not always clear, even here.
Anyone care to guess which entities file the most lawsuits? (I don't
mean "lawyers", either. Ha, ha.)
As an aside, i once heard it said that the justice system is simply a
means to an end. i.e., to resolve a dispute. Nothing more, nothing
less. I often tell people that in law school, the one word I never
heard discussed by any professor, in any class or in any lawbook was
the word "fair." This shocks many people, but after all, what is
"fair"? The legal system has no answer to that question any more than
does any religion or anything else.