Unfortunately, the case of the hot coffee was widely seen abroad and also within America as an example of the extremes of litigiousness on the part of Americans, and it still is. Like it or not, if you google 'frivolous lawsuit' one of your hits will be a discussion of Liebeck v. McDonalds. There was even a Seinfeld episode featuring a ludicrous spilled coffee plot.
From your link:
In the context of court cases, the news media does not, by and large, report the great majority of decisions, which are generally reasonable and fair. The news media tends to focus, rather, on those one or two exceptions which, when reduced to a single sentence or paragraph, appear to be illogical or excessive.
If there are 10,000 cases, for example, decided by juries across the country in a given day, and 9,999 of those cases have results which seem appropriate, then the public will find out only about the one case that does not. In the court of public opinion, therefore, that one case becomes representative of the entire system. Even though, in reality, that case is the exception...
^...On the other hand, in many ways, the McDonald’s case was not an aberration. As in many reports, the evidence was edited and manipulated by insurance companies, journalists, and lobbyists, to make a reasonable jury verdict appear irrational and unjust. The public was never informed about all of the evidence that was presented to the jury. The newspapers and television stations merely reported: “Woman Spills Coffee on Herself Results in $3 Million Award.”
Yes, Ms. Liebeck spilled hot coffee on herself. The jury recognized this and reduced her damages accordingly under the doctrine of comparative fault.
Fault was assigned 80/20 and this was reflected in the award of $160k negligence award, reduced from $200k.
The subsequent reduction of the $2.7m punitive damages award by the trial judge was widely considered to be fair and just. The case was very unfortunately successfully used by business lobbyists as an example of the alleged need for tort reform.