As for McDonald's legal liability, there still is some for the food case, though nowhere near as strong as the cofee case.
In case anybody didn't know already, the story that considers that case to be a "frivolous lawsuit to make the suer rich", was likely started by McDonald's itself, in order to protect it against previous cases. Here's a good source of the real information on the case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
For those too "super-sized" to be arsed to actually go over and read it (:D), here's a summary of the key facts that most never were told:
- The case wasn't alone. More than 700 cases were filed against McDonald's between 1982-1992 by people who were actually burned.
- The coffee was at an unsafe temperature: It was served at 180-190 Fahreinheit, hot enough to cause near-instant THIRD-DEGREE burns (which it did for 6% of the victim's skin in this case, which required immediate hospitalization). Normally, commercially produced coffee is at much less of a temperature such as 155 (which would not usually cause more than first-degree burns when soaked into clothing).
- It was admitted that the QA managers at McDonald's recognised that if a customer drunk their coffee shortly after purchasing it, third-degree burns in the throat were almost gaurunteed.
- The woman who sued was nothing like McDonald's would like you to believe. Most imagine a yuppie in her early 20's, trying to open her coffee while driving, and upset that she ruined her clothes. Instead, the victim was a 79-year-old woman, who attempted to open the cup while sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car.
There are others there, but it gives a clear indication that McDonald's was grossly negligent about the safety of their customers, as long as they bought their product.
