As I remember in that case, McD had received numerous prior complaints that its coffee was too hot and was causing serious scaldings of people, and had done nothing. "Prior bad acts" are a key factor in determining whether punitive damages are appropriate.

I think most people would not expect a cup of spilled coffee would cause them third-degree burns, which is what I remembered that old lady got (on her "groin," so we know what that means - make you wince a little?). McD however knew what the risks were.

Having said all that, I probably would've just given compensatory damages, no punitives, but I wasn't on the jury. I think it just shows the issue is a little more complex than the typical Rush Limbaugh description would have it.