The scope of negligence in tort law expands and contracts over time.

One of the landmark cases in product liability, Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, has received much criticism as a frivolous lawsuit, and has been the basis for many calls of tort reform.

Even Seinfeld mocks the case, with Kramer’s lawyer reprimanding him for using a balm that heals his coffee burn, thereby making the lawsuit void.

Stella Liebeck ordered coffee in a McDonald’s drive-through, spilled it on herself while driving, and received third-degree burns. She successfully sued McDonald’s as a result, with an award of $640,000.

Similar cases with other proprietors have been observed since.

But David Brannen defends the decision, explaining that the jury in the case was upset at the defendant’s conduct. For example, Liebeck offered to settle for her medical bills ($20,000), but they offered her only $800.

Brannen also states that over 700 reported similar cases previously gave the defendant ample opportunity to rectify the problem.

Although they subsequently lowered the temperature of their coffee, some claim it was an incomplete victory tainted by lobbyists:

In a sense, this case wasn’t won by the plaintiff or lost by the defence. It was won by those lobbying for tort reform. They won a public relations campaign by misleading the public and unfairly characterizing certain details of this case. As a result, Ms. Liebeck was further victimized by jokes that made a mockery of her injuries and the harmful actions of McDonald’s.

Which raises further questions as to whether justice is subject to public relations campaigns and perceptions of the public.

Tort liability is adjusted over time to societal expectations, but in an age of mass media this could suggest that a legal defence may have less to do with the law than with access to the public.