During the trial it was revealed that McDonald’s knew that heating their coffee to this temperature would be dangerous, but they did it anyways because it would save them money. When you serve coffee that is too hot to drink, it will take much longer for a person to drink their coffee, which means that McDonald’s will not have to give out as many free refills of coffee. This policy by the fast food chain is the reason the jury awarded $2.7 million dollars in punitive damages in the McDonald’s hot coffee case. Punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant for their inappropriate business practice.

  • SpaceCowboyEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    The bottom bottom line is lawyers want to keep up the narrative that it’s good and proper to sue over hot coffee. Check the source of the link.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      The reality of the story is the lady that got burned admitted it was her fault.

      The bottom line though is that McDonalds sold/served it at an unsafe temperature (for the type of container it was put in), to make more money, making it an unsafe product to sell, which companies are not allowed to do.

      The bottom bottom line is lawyers want to keep up the narrative that it’s good and proper to sue over hot coffee. Check the source of the link.

      You completely ignored my point about safety, you’re not being intellectually honest, and arguing for arguing sake.