192 was the number I came up with because I couldn't be arsed to look up the wiki on the lawsuit. Are you really going to take me to task for being over or under 5 degrees of the coffee's temperature?
Geez.
You sorely understate the circumstances of the Liebeck case by insulting her ("mentally retarded") and making the false conclusion that the suit was over the failure to warn over the temperature of the coffee (it was an attempt to get McDonald's to pay for the surgery she required due to the coffee's temperature).
"Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.[8] Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[9] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed."
Much of your other circumstances suggest that things are clearly laid out in terms of hiring agreements: wages, increases, evaluations, bonuses, etc. When it comes to manual labor, those things aren't spelled out such that would allow reasonable suits to consistently be made. Moreover, setting such a high standard for burden of proof would simply reward companies that are covert in how they manipulate and harm their employees. Plausible deniability seems to be more than enough to satisfy many who post in the vs forums that racial/gender discrimination did not occur - so why would it be any different in terms of a fair wage?
In an attempt to wring this back to the point in your OP, you point the finger of blame at the government here, and while I don't disagree with that, it's a myopic conclusion that doesn't take to task the corporation that knowingly harms consumers and uses cheap labor and cheaper materials. The government can't win in the eyes of a Libertarian: if this bill successfully included Mattel, you would decry "red tape" and "too much regulation" with a side of "waste of taxpayer money." They did not do this, instead applying a half-assed special interest-supporting version.
Let me put it this way: the government deserves to be taken to task for special treatment of some corporations compared to others. But to be fully realistic, we have to consider that no matter what the government could have done here, it would never have done anything but raise your ire and further reinforce that government is evil and cannot be trusted. That, quite simply, is why I have such disdain for your opinion on this issue: no matter what happens in the world, it can be psychologically satisfied and remain unchanged somehow.
(Like when Republican politicians royally
up everything around them and then run for re-election on the promise to reduce "big government ______." - If they do a great job in office, it's a good idea to re-elect them; when they
everything up, OTOH, it's a reminder that we can't trust government and thus have to elect Republicans to avoid further problems.)
Tautologies can suck it, in short.