For the sake of those who don't know:
The summary of the case just says the old lady spilled hot coffee on herserf, sued McDonals, and won.
The details of the case were that the coffee was dangerusly hot, above the recommended safety level. The old lady got third degree burns on her thighs and genitals, and needed hospitalization and surgery. Afterwards she asked McDonald's to compensate her for the hospital bill only (I seem to remember only $10,000?) McDonalds refused. That's when she took them to court. The initial judgement was high, and McDonalds was shown to be negligent in serving way too dangerously hot coffee in really unsafe containers. McDonalds appealed, appelate court still ruled in the old lady's favor, but reduced the judgement.

No, just pointing out that the court summary shows the old lady as a sue-happy opportunist, and that's what most people with preconcieved notions assume. The details often don't match people's assumptions.