While we're at it, our body systems could continually provide updates via Twitter and Facebook.

Score.

I recall from some reading on this case a few more details as well.

McDonald's coffee was known to be hotter than normal. It's actually pretty good coffee, and it's far easier to let your coffee cool for a moment than to warm it more if you like it really hot. At any rate, there had been many (hundreds) of suits filed against McDonald's in the USA for coffee spills. Every one was quietly settled.

Then, this elderly woman receives her cup of coffee, and spills it between her legs in her car. Yes, it is supremely stupid to put a hot coffee between your legs as you drive away. At any rate, she suffered very bad burns to her thighs. Being elderly, she was in the pool of hot coffee longer than a younger person who could have moved away faster. She also required a lot more medical care than someone younger.

She filed suit with McDonald's. McDonald's decided to pursue this lawsuit instead of settling, which was a surprised given the history of settlements for these cases. Perhaps it had a unique property that made it more appealing for pursuit.

The actual awards arising from this case went both ways. From memory, the old woman who spilled the coffee was actually liable for negligence on the order of a couple hundred thousand dollars. However, McDonald's was also held liable for negligence, though I believe for a greater percentage. What swayed the case so heavily in the old woman's favor were the punitive damages. The court awarded her a large sum of punitive damages, as I recall in response to the sudden aggressive pursuit of this case by McDonald's. Of course, multi-million dollar damages awarded made headlines. McDonald's appealed the ruling, but the case didn't receive more significant media coverage. It's entirely possible that the woman settled during the appeal for a smaller amount, realizing that the case could be drawn out long enough for her funeral.

Sorry - no real citations, but nothing is embellished here. It's a tough matter to discuss without all the facts. When you realize the source of the large award (punitive damages, not negligence), and that the woman was in fact held partially liable for the negligence, it's not so black and white.