>I listened to a program with the jurors from the McDonald lawsuit. The jurors found against McDonalds because company memos etc. clearly showed that it was dangerous and they knew it, but from a company point of view it was cheaper to pay for a few injuries than protect people. I think it was that by serving very hot coffee they actually made more profit through volume and as they assessed the loses from suits etc. they made more. The jurors resented that McDonalds would burn them for a few lousy dollars and gave an award that would discourage it. The award later got lowered. Point is the details make a difference.

While I see the point, I do fail to see how hotter coffee means more profit, but it really does not matter. Even if the temp was what you or I would consider hot enough, it will still do bodily harm if spilled. I still think it ludicrous to sue someone over your own clumsiness or stupidity. At a minimum, I probably would have found both parties negligent based on your points.

We are still too litigous in this country, and too many people are looking at the courts as a lottery.