The McDonald's coffee case is a landmark case that has shaped the past decades of tort law and tort reform efforts. Please watch the New York Times Retro Report on the case and its impact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCkL9UlmCOE(Please note that there are photos of the burns that were admitted into evidence shown in the video).

If you were on the jury, would you have found for Stella or McDonald's and why? What evidence and legal arguments do you find the most persuasive?

What lessons can we draw from this case? What does it show about the court of public opinion versus what happens in a court of law? How does it relate to our current era of "fake news"?