Yes I think this was McDonalds. If I recall correctly she spilled it on her leg in her car and successfully sued on the basis that she was not warned that the contents were hot. Now all disposable hot drink cups from fast food outlets have a warning on the outside stating that the contents may be hot!
I also had to laugh the other day when I read the back of a packet of dry roasted peanuts where it prominently told me "WARNING this product product may contain nuts" !
Wade
I think you need to do some research on the McDonald's case. The coffee was served at like 180 degrees, which is waay hotter than it is supposed to be served. She also spilled the coffee on on her crotch and had to receive skin graphs for the burns. I'll see if I can find a link to the case...
Edit to add:
The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[sup]
[13][/sup] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys
discovered that McDonald's required
franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald’s served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[sup]
[2][/sup] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[sup]
[3][/sup]
Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[sup]
[2][/sup] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to warn about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[sup]
[14][/sup]
A twelve-person jury reached its verdict on August 18, 1994.[sup]
[13][/sup] Applying the principles of
comparative negligence, the
jury found that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and Liebeck was 20% at fault. Though there was a warning on the coffee cup, the jury decided that the warning was neither large enough nor sufficient. They awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in
compensatory damages, which was then reduced by 20% to $160,000. In addition, they awarded her $2.7 million in
punitive damages. The jurors apparently arrived at this figure from Morgan's suggestion to penalize McDonald's for one or two days' worth of coffee revenues, which were about $1.35 million per day.[sup]
[2][/sup] The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000.[sup]
[15][/sup]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
