We've all heard of the case, but few of us know the actual facts. The woman was in a parked car (as the passenger), not in a moving vehicle. McDonald's did not "pay millions in compensation"; a jury awarded nearly $3 million to her in punitive damages (representing two days' sales of coffee for McDonald's!), but the judge reduced that figure to around $500,000, and it is believed that the woman didn't even receive that, as the matter was settled with McDonald's under a confidentiality clause.

The jury's initial award was not in consideration of her injuries, pain and suffering, but a punitive measure against McDonald's, who had been found to have taken no action despite more than 700 complaints over more than a decade about injuries due to overly hot coffee (settling many of those complaints with cash payouts). It's worth noting that the woman suffered third degree burns and had to have skin grafts, so her injuries and medical costs were not trivial. She had initially asked McDonald's to pay $20,000, to cover her medical costs; McDonald's had offered her $800.

None of which is particularly relevant to this thread, except to point out that the sensational stories about the excesses of US litigation are often exaggerated, and that the legal system there allows defendants to drag court cases out over years, if not decades, often forcing litigants into accepting reduced settlements.

Quite a few of us do though considering I posted just that about five posts back.

Two of us doesn't make quite a few.

Yes, I saw (and thanked) your post only after I made mine. I realise I should have provided a reference (I've carried all that info in my head ever since it was presented to me in a law course years ago), but you've saved me the trouble now.