You go to a McDonald's drive-through, get a cup of coffee, and park the car. You place the cup between your legs to steady it so you can add cream and sugar, and in the process, spill the contents. You suffer third-degree burns requiring a seven-day hospital stay and painful skin grafts. A doctor later says they are the worst injuries he's ever seen from a liquid burn. The medical bills amount to a staggering $20,000. You ask McDonald's to cover these expenses. They offer $800.00.

Why should McDonald's pay your medical bills? Coffee is supposed to be hot, right? But when you hire an attorney, he discovers that McDonald's served its coffee at a scalding 20-40 degrees hotter than coffee for sale at most fast-food places. Even more troubling, he learns that the company received plenty of warnings that its coffee was dangerously hot: More than 700 complaints had been filed during the previous 10 years. McDonald's quietly settled many lawsuits out of court but never warned customers about the dangers its coffee posed if spilled; nor did the company reduce the temperature of its coffee.

Those are the facts of what would become known as the Million Dollar Coffee Spill. Today marks the 10-year anniversary of the nearly $2.9 million jury decision that shocked the nation. Stella Leibeck, a 79-year-old woman who had never filed a lawsuit in her life, was the plaintiff in the case. The jury decided McDonald's had a duty to provide the public with a safe product and to warn customers if the product was dangerous. Jurors also found that Leibeck contributed to the harm; as a result, they reduced the verdict by 20 percent for her share of the blame. That's pretty standard procedure in personal injury cases.

Most of the damages awarded to Leibeck represented punitive damages, however, which are meant to punish defendants for harmful behavior. Punitive damages are less standard and are meant to send a powerful message to the defendant. McDonald's earned $1 million a day in coffee sales, and the jury thought two days' worth of coffee sales would be appropriate as punitive damages.

The case made front-page headlines around the country. Radio and television commentators mocked the decision. The case was featured twice on David Letterman's Top 10 Lists. On June 29, 1995, it was No. 4 of "Dr. Kevorkian's Tips for The Summer ("Take a bunch of friends to McDonald's and pour hot coffee on them"); and on Jan. 8, 1996, it was No. 8 of the Top 10 Blizzard Tips ("Clean snow off driveway with just one scalding-hot cup of coffee from McDonald's"). In October 1995, an episode of Seinfeld parodied the case. All the media attention created a public image of what the verdict meant. The McDonald's decision came to symbolize frivolous lawsuits, greedy lawyers, and out-of-control juries. Polls taken after the verdict showed the public solidly supported the Golden Arches.

Why? Because of a particular American narrative about taking responsibility for our own actions. It seemed wrong to blame McDonald's for a customer's careless spill.

Most people didn't know the whole story, however. When McDonald's appealed the decision and the judge reduced the award by 75 percent, no one seemed to notice. Newspapers published angry letters to the editor, which referred to the million-dollar windfall and other erroneous information, such as the "fact" that Leibeck was tearing around in a sports car while trying to put condiments in her coffee.

Taking advantage of the country's collective outrage over a "legal system run amok," so-called tort reform advocates, many of them actually in cahoots with corporations like McDonald's, took out radio and television ads promoting their cause. "We can't afford another million-dollar cup of coffee," said one, well after the award had been reduced to under $600,000. With lightning speed, laws in 30 states that limited damage awards in personal injury litigation were overhauled. Most of the legislation favored McDonald's-like corporations, with the result that it is more difficult for ordinary Americans, in some states, with reasonable cases to receive compensation for injuries caused by those corporations.

Looking at the case in light of all of the facts, many now believe the McDonald's verdict was reasonable. The McDonald's case shows us that we need to look beneath the surface story of court decisions and carefully read the facts of the case. When we do that, we discover that Stella Leibeck was not driving a sports car while attempting to put cream in her coffee; she suffered severe and permanent injuries; and McDonald's had been repeatedly warned that its coffee could cause third-degree burns when it touched the skin. She also collected nothing close to millions of dollars. If we don't read the facts carefully, we become frustrated with the system based on incomplete information and support reforms that are unnecessary and perhaps even destructive.

Those who wrote angry letters to the editor ridiculing the McDonald's decision - which they did not fully understand - were the ones who would stand to lose the most if damage awards are cut. The "we" that reform advocates referred to in ads meant to sway public opinion refer to insurance companies, wealthy physicians, and large corporations like McDonald's, not the average American.