That would be a bad example of a "punitive" fine, not in small part due to the PR efforts of the company being sued and the trigger-happy media. The final verd

That would be a bad example of a "punitive" fine, not in small part due to the PR efforts of the company being sued and the trigger-happy media. The final verdict for the case was $600K in punitive damages, which McDonalds appealed, and ultimately settled out of court for an undisclosed (and, obviously, smaller) amount. Quoting Wikipedia (and its sources), the setup for the case: Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, which was provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years. Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. Instead, the company offered only $800. - - - - - - - So, in the end, "that lady" wanted $20K, which didn't even cover all the expenses - and McDonalds offered $800. That might give you a scale on what she probably ended up getting out of court. In the end - bold font, <h1> - McDonalds paid no punitive damages. And what they paid was an order of magnitude less than the figure you mentioned. Here's a short documentary on the case that will paint you a better picture: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html?playlistId=100000002148738 https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-...