I find myself going back and forth every time I read about this case. Those informed about the case aren't really questioning the harm, but rather the responsibility. In my experience many people want coffee and food to be as hot as possible, especially old people. Personally I have to wait for coffee to cool down before I drink it, but maybe I'll get there.
Now perhaps McDonald's should give customers a choice of temperatures, shouldn't be serving such hot coffee from the drive thru, should add the cream/sugars before giving it to customers, should have rigid coffee cups that won't collapse when the lid is removed, or something else to reduce/prevent/discourage that specific type of situation. But it seems the main component of liability here was simply the coffee's temperature, which is something many customers actually want.
Now perhaps McDonald's should give customers a choice of temperatures, shouldn't be serving such hot coffee from the drive thru, should add the cream/sugars before giving it to customers, should have rigid coffee cups that won't collapse when the lid is removed, or something else to reduce/prevent/discourage that specific type of situation. But it seems the main component of liability here was simply the coffee's temperature, which is something many customers actually want.