Actually those facts about the McDonald's coffee case are wrong...
McDonald's coffee was at 180 degrees, which is boiling - but it is the commonly accepted and preferred temperature of coffee among aficionados and the like, as its most flavourful etc. I don't agree with this and like my coffee to be drinkable right away, as I usually go through an XL cup like water. I can't imagine most people liking it either, but I also can't imagine anybody seriously considering themself a coffee afficionado. To each their own.
There is also another report that states her son or grandson was driving (or in the passenger; I can't remember) and the coffee was allowed to stay on her lap for a full minute or longer - she could have easily been helped, though I know no one who is especially fond of padding down his/her mother or grandmother's thighs, naked or clothed, with napkins. And yes, I know this probably wouldn't help much at a temperature that high - but who just sits there?
At any rate, there were a number of other facts discussed about the case besides the commonly accepted "she's a clumsy person and it is her fault."
Think of it this way: is it at all possible that this was this lady's first trip ever to McDonald's? Absolutely not. Either her or her son/grandson would've known their coffee was hot and not put it on their lap (was there not a cup holder in their vehicle?). Especially considering the fact you pointed out that McDonald's had numerous complaints/incidents involving the temp. of their coffee.
I am not calling her stupid; accidents happen. It is a shame she had to suffer those burns, and McDonald's should've paid her her medical bills before it was taken to court - especially in a day where anyone can sue for anything and probably win.
On the e-cig case: I haven't even received mine yet but even I'm not stupid enough to believe that 20-some chemicals could be as or more harmful as the 4000+ that are in analogs. Those would have to be the most toxic chemicals known to man, which are probably highly illegal, incredibly difficult to obtain, include cyanide, and would take the buying power of an incredibly large industry (oh, say, the tobacco industry?) to produce. Oh, wait, analogs 4000+ chems do fit that description.
It's a way to make money and nothing else; and it's a shame to see another reminder of the common lawyer's low price. A product that could potentially save millions? Why doesn't tobacco just buy e-cigs and convert everyone? I'm not moral or political in any way, so I wouldn't mind - at least then our e-cigs wouldn't be banned everywhere with corporations like that backing them. For moralists: I don't like the tobacco industry either, it's merely an idea - the point is e-cigs need a powerful company to back them in order to survive in the corporate world of filthy lawsuits like this.
Hopefully one day they'll catch on and replace analogs in every convenience store.
And really, how many people have we seen come to the forum with a list of side effects that they're blaming on e-cigs but in reality are known effects of quitting smoking? One person that doesn't have the sense to know that coffee is hot, and away we go. If nothing else, this should prove to our suppliers that they need to label their product as clearly as possible and with an eye toward user error and greedy lawyers. 
