>What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is sta

>What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing. That is the problematic thinking right there. You are sacrificing 700 people to be burned so badly by coffee they require skin grafting based on it being statistically insignificant. While no doubt many cases settled, many didn't and in those cases McDonalds was ordered to turn the temp down so spilled coffee would at least not result in scalding that require skin grafting. It is not small thing or statistically insignificant that McDonalds ignored many court orders, but why did they ignore the court order? Because the same cost benefit analysis you presented, they'd happily continue their practicies of selling 171B coffees and paying out 700 claims, than change the coffee temp and potentially lose any coffee market share. As I mention above this well known case is unique because it awarded punitive damages, equaling 1 day of coffee sales, solely because the company repeatedly ignored court orders (i.e. Told the court to go fuck itself), further what is never mentioned consistent with the anti-litigation PR is that the judgement was appealed and ultimately lowered.