May be they do it for publicity.
As someone said “there is no such a thing as bad publicity”
The problem with the McD’s case is that the coffee wasn’t hot like you’d expect - it was scalding hot, far above drinkable temps because management had decided to serve it that hot (180-190F) so that the coffee would still be “piping” when the average commuter would finish their commute. They had been warned hundreds of times about the danger and liability of this policy and still refused to change the temp. That’s what got them hit so hard.
Again “hot” coffee, will burn you slightly. The coffee that this woman spilled was hot enough to give her 3rd degree burns
Oh, and she wasn’t driving. She was the passenger in a parked car that her grandson was driving and had parked to allow her to fix her coffee.
And of course, they bolded the warning and haven’t xhanged much of anything about the coffee. Which goes a long way to explain McD’s coffee. (Seriously… near boiling?)
It’s good to hear the whole story sometimes.
I think these things should be handled civilly in court rather than with violence for sure. But I guess it just seems that it sometimes goes too far. Things get dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. They say that every warning is a result of successful litigation. When you see a package of peanuts that says Warning, may contain nuts, it makes you wonder.
The legal system, like politics and the corporate world, is a necessary part of society. Unfortunately, in practice they all favor the person with the most money.
It’s also designed specifically to grow the influence of the system itself, instead of being a means to an end. But lawyers aren’t the first to abuse their power.
Yes, seriously near boiling. I don’t brew my coffee with warm water and you don’t either. The recommendation is 195-205F with 200F being optimum.
Just sayin’… 
Brewing temperature and serving temperature are two different things. 170-175 is an appropriate serving temperature.
Coffee should be maintained at 180-185F.
The McDonald’s version of the story that has become the version that most people know is that she was driving around and while in transport flung the lid open when it was held between her legs so she could add creamer and that is when the injury occurred. As you point out, she wasn’t driving nor was the vehicle in transport. The same injury could have occurred while sitting at a table or desk, standing up, etc. In fact, it did. At the time of the lawsuit McDonald’s alone had already had 700 reports of serious burns related to the temperature of the coffee. McDonald’s ate it at trial because their witnesses acted like they didn’t care that people were getting injured. That’s why the jury awarded so much money. Her attorney was asking for $40,000 at trial.
McDonald’s framed the legal issue in the public as a question of whether this old gal knew the coffee was hot and assumed the risk when she bought it. Well, obviously everybody knows coffee is hot. You know that just holding the cup. The legal addressed in the court was whether a company should be responsible for injuries caused by selling liquid at a temperature incapable of being safely consumed and causes third degree burns in seconds and selling that liquid in a flimsy styrofoam cup with an ill-fitted plastic lid, especially when they are serving them to people sitting in cars. In other words, is the combination of hot coffee, container and sales method creating an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers? If so, then McDonald’s should be responsible for implementing a safer product. That is the legal analysis for product liability and that’s why her attorney argued that the coffee should be served at a cooler temperature.
Let’s be clear about hot liquids and scalding time.
140F at 3 seconds exposure is 2nd degree burns
http://www.burncarefoundation.org/safety/hot-water-exposure.html
160F water is 1/2 a second
http://www.pseg.com/home/education_safety/safety/scalding.jsp
Here you can see how the temp rise increases the danger.
FWIW - no resource ever suggests coffee should be served at any less than 170F, optimum is what I stated earlier, 180-185F.
This is why we can’t have nice things hot coffee.
Speaking in absolutes can paint you into a corner. 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454
http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/01/coffee-temperature-how-hot-should-coffee-be.html
I drink my coffee around 170-175 so I can taste my coffee. Is this subjective? Yes. (See second link.) Do people still like their beer served ice cold in a frozen mug? Yep!
I hate scalding my tongue on coffee that is just too hot. For me, it’s better to let it cool down a bit and be able to taste the care that went into selecting and roasting them.
Ooops, let me correct myself. I should have never said no resource. That statement was shown to be in error.
A blogger suggests coffee is served too hot and a mechanical engineer has a publication suggesting it is served too hot based on scald potential.
A recent survey shows… ;D
As far as 170-175, I have to agree there or even slightly cooler is where coffee may be by the time it touches someones lips. Add in creamer and it could be even colder. Also ice could be added.
But I believe the topic on point is Hot Coffee without all the fluff and the National Coffee Association and the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) both suggest serving temperatures in excess of 170F. So I’ll change my statement from “no resource”, to no major acknowledged association who deals exclusively in coffee suggests it be served at any less than 170F. 8)
No major acknowledged association who deals exclusively in coffee beer suggests it be served at any less than 170F more than 38°F. ;D
Au contraire mon frere
http://www.camra.org.uk/beerinthepub
8)
Check and mate.
In the training we would get, the lawyers would point out that it is not against the law to be stupid.
Not yet.
Remember that law are written every day.
And may be one day law will be passed that will outlaw the stupid.
That would be anarchy
If mcds made the Golden Arches on their mug glow when coffee was at optimum temperature, could coors sue them for stealing their blue mountains gig that tells a person the beer is cold enough to be consumed without gagging.
If Texas outlawed stupid then the legislature wouldn’t pass any more legislation.