I'm just trying to see what sort of person still holds the objectively stupid- sorry, that's just what it is, and blatantly so- opinion.

There's really no excuse to still have such a simplistic, ass backward, and objectively incorrect view on the hot coffee lawsuit, because far too much information exists to show that there was absolutely nothing frivolous about that.

Particularly considering facts in evidence that illustrate clear negligence on the part of McDonald's, particularly given that there were 700 such claims in the decade prior.

Not to mention the fact that the woman was simply seeking payment for her medical bills, with a small amount for lost wages of her daughter.

The fact that you'd reference this as a "low bar", while posting a wiki that alone lays out enough information to know that this was a legitimate lawsuit with serious liability issues on the part of McDonald's.

She didn't sue because she spilled hot coffee on herself, and she won because there were significant problems on McDonald's.