I think using the McDonald's lawsuit as an example of frivilious lawsuits is in poor taste. I followed that case because it did outrage me. However,
when the facts came out, the woman had a legitimate case.
Coffee should never be giving someone third degree burns. The way the corporation addressed the original claim, which was medical expenses only, was
also badly handled. Also, the jury felt that the plaintiff was 20% at fault. Not all lawsuits are as frivilious as people and the media claim they
are.
*
McFacts about the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
*
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
Now, the judge with the pants... that is frivilious lawsuit, and that person lost his position after it was not affirmed for an extension. Well
deserved.
I would recommend researching any case that sounds frivilious to see what is really going on. The truth might surprise you.