I can't really improve on OKCMallen's answer and I 100% agree, so I won't waste your time with a rebuttal which says basically the same thing.

Quote Originally Posted by SoonerDave View Post
Discovery may have revealed 700 burns from coffee, but in that same ten year period, how many cups of coffee did that same McD's serve that didn't burn anyone? And if McDonald's behavior were that egregious, why not move the case to a *criminal* court for reckless disregard?
That one happened and McD's failed to remedy the situation should be enough. 700 burns is 700 burns reported, so we can probably assume that there are more out there.

Why the case wasn't removed to criminal court -- in the U.S., a civil action doesn't ever morph into a criminal action (except in contempt proceedings). I know that's not the case in other legal systems (I know Sharia definitely doesn't make that distinction). In the U.S., some sort of state's attorney would have to indict McDonald's for something like reckless endangerment. Then the D.A.'s office would have to deal with McDonald's multi-million dollar legal team on some crap misdemeanor or minor felony count where there might not even be a person to lock up. Definitely not worth the headache.

I respectfully disagree that all other viewpoints
If, conservatively, that McDonald's sold 100 cups of coffee every day in that ten-year period, that's 364,300 cups of coffee that were sold without an incident being reported. (And I'll wager McD's sold 100 cups of coffee in a typical hour during breakfast). That meant that McDonald's "egregious" behavior was without consequence 99.99% of the time.
When sell millions of cups of coffee, .001% is a very significant number if you're talking about causing serious burns to people through your reckless actions.

What percentage of kids who had lead paint on their toys were tangibly injured by that paint? A small number, right? We still care though, don't we?

"Ah," comes the reply, "but for the temperature of the coffee the *burns* would never have occurred." True. That's why, in my view, a just resolution would have been to assign 50% blame to each party, not 80-20...
80/20 was the value judgment that jury made. That's why they're paid the big bucks.