Trigger words: frivolous
Indicator sentences: Frivolous has a very limited meaning, and this lawsuit does not qualify.
Negotiation parts: To be frivolous, a lawsuit must have no merit. But here, McDonald's deliberately set the temperature of their coffee to one that could cause tissue damage ([STA-CITE]>110 degrees F). Had they set that coffee to a temperature under 110, it would be highly unlikely that any damage would have ensued. So they are at least partially at fault in any scald injury. Liebeck did indeed suffer a scald injury, and she did so by exposure to hot McDonald's coffee. With those elements satisfied (McDonald's had a duty to safeguard its customers, it took an action that conflicted with that duty, she suffered injury, and the injury was caused by McDonalds' action), the case is not frivolous. [END-CITE]We might want to live in a world in which coffee can be served above 110F without fear of lawsuits. I happen to enjoy McDonald's coffee. That desire doesn't change the definition of frivolous, however. And a lawsuit alleging a breach of that duty is not frivolous. Frivolous has a specific definition. You're right. I messed up by using the word frivolous.
Trigger words: frivolous
Indicator sentences: Frivolousness (the actual legal term) is a really high bar.
Negotiation parts: There are two types, factual and legal frivolousness. For factual frivolousness the Supreme Court [has held the standard to be as follows.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9141408508548092395) [STA-CITE]>[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 U. S., at 327, a category encompassing allegations 33*33 that are "fanciful," id., at 325, "fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. [END-CITE]This case is clearly not factually frivolous under that standard. The facts alleged were that the plaintiff was burned (true) by coffee that was hot (true), that was above industry temperature standards (a plausible assertion of fact), and that McDonald's willfully made its coffee hotter than standard (a plausible assertion of fact). As far as legal frivolousness, this is defined [as follows:](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=868429855339617087&q=legal+merit+frivolous&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33) [STA-CITE]>an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where none of the legal points are arguable on their merits. [END-CITE]In this case, there was at least a plausible case for tort negligence based on the alleged facts. It might be a case that's a likely loser, but as long as there's some level of sane argument to be made, it's not frivolous. I should not have used frivolous, but I can't argue with that! ∆