> How do you know it's true? Many, many people routinely prepare coffee for themselves that is hotter than McDonald's provided.
Ok, I'm not exactly sure what we're really disputing here. To clarify, I was just agreeing with the sentiment of GP's claim that "every cup of coffee you've ever had in your life was at a lower temperature than what McDonald's was serving up". You're right that as a literal statement it is probably not true.
The real point is whether McDonald's coffee was being served at an unreasonably hot temperature. Based on what I saw in the movie, and read on the Consumer Attorney's of California website, and based on my experience with current/post-lawsuit McDonald's coffee temperatures (which I still find exceedingly hot), I find it entirely believable that the coffee was served at an unreasonably hot temperature.
More context:
> Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.
Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain.