i have seen this story discussed a few times and often the facts are misrepresented. i especially get annoyed when it is used as an example of frivolous lawsuits and the need for tort reform. this story demonstrates the purpose of punitive damages and how they function. punitive damages are intended to punish the offender, it takes a lot of money to punish mcdonalds. unfortunately, people love to hate attorneys, love to think that frivolous lawsuits are rampant, and think tort reform will fix everything. so they were easily able to manipulate the facts and no one wanted to double check.
also crazy how mcdonald's really comes out ahead in this. they had to pay very little, be perceived as the victim of a justice system run amok, and have a nice framing device for a narrative people want to buy into that ultimately just protects them from liability.