Yes, I still understand what you are saying, but what I think you are still missing is the purpose of punitive damages, which made up the bulk of the jury's award. Punitive damages are awarded to reform or deter's the defendant's conduct, where actual damages would not suffice to accomplish that goal. It is clear that McDonalds had no intention of changing its policy prior to the punitive damage award. A spokesman for McDonalds testified that they had done a cost benefit analysis and had determined that it was cheaper for them to seriously burn 70 of their customers a year than it was for them to make a common sense change to their coffee brewing policy. The company also lied about their reason for maintaining the policy. They claimed that they kept the coffee so hot because most of their customers didn't drink it until they reached their destinations, and they wanted it to still be hot when they arrived. But McDonald's own research showed that most of their customers actually drank the coffee in route. I don't know why you keep bringing up the lid, because it was not an issue in the case. The case was about the temperature of the coffee, which was established by a uniform policy throughout the company.
So once again, I don't think the jury's decision was irrational. McDonalds knew that the temperature they prescribed for their coffee could and WOULD cause approximately 70 people per year to suffer serious burns. In reality I'm sure the number is much higher, but that is the number who actually complained to McDonalds. It was apparent that McDonalds would not change it's policy if it only had to compensate the burn victims with relatively modest settlements, even though some were as high as $500,000. McDonalds made an economic decision to endanger its customers, and the jury made the decision to change McDonald's economic equation.