It's called hyperbole.
It was a civil dispute between two individuals, it has nothing to do with the "nanny state", you ignorant oaf. This case wouldn't be notable at all if it couldn't be presented in a way in which it made it seem as if the damage were trivial. Under current contract law, there is an implied guarantee of fitness for products. Caveat emptor, or absolving the maker of all responsibility for defects, hasn't been law for a century. That's a stupid and economically inefficient rule that does nothing but reward people for screwing others.
If you are seriously selling a beverage that can cause that kind of damage, it is damn well your responsibility to make this fact explicit, so that I can treat it with the appropriate amount of care. The care required of something that will burn through my skin should it be spilt, rather than something, like any typical cup of coffee, that will only mildly annoy me. It is not my responsibility to expect such a thing, so far out of anyone's typical experience with the beverage. If you do not inform me, it's not at all unreasonable for you to pay the medical bills. I would agree that millions in punitive damages is ridiculous, but that's an inevitable byproduct of our civil system.
