The judgment in Sam Bogle & Others v McDonald's Restaurant is good news for insurers of any organisation which sells hot drinks and/or food.
Since the infamous American case Liebeck v McDonald's when Mrs Liebeck spilt a cup of coffee on her lap and was initially awarded $3m (£2.06m), similar litigation has followed in the UK.
Sam Bogle v McDonald's was a group action brought against McDonald's. Many of the claimants suffered serious burns when hot drinks spilt on them.
But evidence showed that if the temperature of the drink was lowered to 65 degrees centigrade it was still capable of causing serious burns. Therefore, it was argued, if restaurants were obliged to lower the temperature to such a low level it would be unlikely anyone would buy the beverage.
The court agreed that serving drinks between 75-90 degrees centigrade was acceptable.
The court said it would seem incredible that claims had been brought against various restaurants on the basis that the temperature of their drinks was too high, that the cups were of inappropriate quality and lacked warnings of how hot the liquid within them really was. It said that someone buying such a drink had done so on the basis that it would be hot.
It was also found that the quality of the cups used by McDonald's was acceptable and there was no duty to warn customers of the risk of injury from spillage.