Not the greatest example. McDonald's was found to be keeping the coffee abnormally hot, and the lady actually had very serious burns from it. The facts of that case actually showed pretty clearly that McDonald's knew they kept the coffee hot enough to cause serious burns, but did so anyway. If I recall they'd settled a number of previous burn cases, but that's the first one that actually went to trial.
+1.
We went over this case in my intro law class. The lady who was severely burned had a legitimate case. McDonald's kept their coffee WAY hotter than any other establishment and didn't warn the customer that it was abnormally WAY hotter. This means that customers didn't exercise extra caution when handling the coffee because they assumed (rightly) that the coffee was the same temperature as other coffee purchased elsewhere (which wouldn't have caused the severe burns she received).
This lady went through tremendous pain and suffering. She had to get skin grafts and everything.
McDonald's KNEW about this and settled cases before but NEVER decreased the temperature of their coffee b/c it tasted better hotter apparently. McDonald's was just thinking about profits and not about the well-being of its customers. McDonald's knew its coffee sales would decline if they decreased the temp so they left it at the high temp.
McDonald's was found rightfully negligent.