I guess (and it a speculative guess) it shows that it is a point of principle and not unbridled greed, as for example as shown by USA inhabitants suing burger joints for daring sell them something outrageous as hot coffee. Defending an action would be expensive even if was for only a dollar.
The "hot coffee" one, while sounding silly and often used as an indicator of a litigious culture, was actually horrific. It wasn't just hot, it was superheated, full on 3rd degree burns, skin removal, stuff. Google at your own risk, the pictures are nasty.
As said, Punitive damages are going to be the big number, irrespective of where the suit is.
I guess (and it a speculative guess) it shows that it is a point of principle and not unbridled greed, as for example as shown by USA inhabitants suing burger joints for daring sell them something outrageous as hot coffee. Defending an action would be expensive even if was for only a dollar.
Off topic, but I feel I have to correct this faliciy made up by MacDonaldz
That was made up by the company itself to save face. She actually received extensive burns over her body as the coffee was incorrectly heated to around 100C! So she sued because she was effectively disabled.