There's no need to fix that law. The woman in that case was severely burned by a coffee cup that was scaldingly hot[1], and the McDonalds location knew that but didn't care. The law worked as intended: McDonalds implemented safety protocols to prevent similar injuries in the future.
[1] She suffered third degree burns and required months of skin grafts.
Contrast this with Tylenol, which when confronted with the sales of tampered bottles, launched a PR campaign that is still widely regarded as the only proper way to address a safety crisis. In a nutshell: (1) don't blame the victims, (2) take full responsibility to fix things even if it's not your fault, and (3) carry out that plan to fix things.
No, that court got it right. That woman was seriously injured by McDonald's negligence above and beyond a simple coffee burn. If you spill coffee on you today, it's just hot and painful. That's because the woman in the McDonald's case spilled the coffee on herself and suffered third-degree (i.e., permanently scarring and disfiguring) burns. As a result of the settlement, McDonalds lowered the temperature of the coffee so that it would no longer maim people.
[1] She suffered third degree burns and required months of skin grafts.
Contrast this with Tylenol, which when confronted with the sales of tampered bottles, launched a PR campaign that is still widely regarded as the only proper way to address a safety crisis. In a nutshell: (1) don't blame the victims, (2) take full responsibility to fix things even if it's not your fault, and (3) carry out that plan to fix things.