Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Pointless commentary

This is terrible. It was her fault for spilling it.

No, it's not. It's McDonald's fault for selling a consumable substance that rendered third-degree burns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the product was unreasonably (and needlessly) dangerous. —Casey J. Morris

the product was not unreasonably dangerous. It was reasonably dangerous since its dangerousness served a useful purpose: better taste. There are many products which are dangerous for good reasons like knives and cars. You weigh the risk with the benefits. People know hot coffee can burn them and smart people don't try to add sugar to coffee while in a car. Should we stop selling very sharp knives given that they are far more dangerous and cause far worse injuries than hot coffee. Also very sharp knives can be replaced by duller knives which do the same thing but are just more difficult to use. Also doesn't eliminating dangerous products deprive those who can handle the danger.

I think the article could use some more discussion of the juror's post-trial comments. AFAIK, the jurors dismissed McDonald's statistical claims that benefit outweighed cost for both McDonald's (700 claims in 10 years is statistically trivial and should not influence company policy) and the consumer (fresher, better-tasting coffee) because "every statistic is a person". If this is indeed the case, it's not the fault of McDonald's that people don't understand economics or probability theory. Dujang Prang 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Please don't use the discussion page to discuss whether or not you approve of the subject. Wikipedia is not a web forum. The discussion page is meant for discussing the content of the article. --Tysto 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The discussion page is also a good place for letting off steam instead of writing garbage in the actual article. A lot of people are outraged by things they see in the wikipedia and the discussion page is good place to discuss this.

The discussion page is just that: a page for discussion on the subject at hand. I actually came here to ask a question about whether I missed something, since given the facts stated here it's very difficult to believe that the judge awarded her any damages at all. From what I read in the article, it seems someone a) knowingly put a carton containing hot coffee between her legs and b) pulled of the lid with enough force to tip the carton. First of, a reasonable person would not put a carton of any hot liquid between his legs. And you know that when a lid goes loose, this might result in jerky movements. The article gives no explanation of why the judge found that McDonalds had to pay up. A carton cup of hot coffee is just that. Even if you argue there should be a warning on it, what better warning would there be than the label itself. (I'm not especially familiar with McDonalds, but I've drank hot coffee from carton cups elsewhere, and it usually states HOT COFFEE or something similar. Which is totally redundant if your memory is good enough to remember your own order.) What warning could there possibly be that's not preempted by this label? The article leaves people with questions, and so people flock to the discussion page. Shinobu 12:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

DAMN STRAIGHT!

Expansion?

It needs to be added that the coffee was served extra hot because water expands when it is heated up, and thus people think they are getting more coffee than they actually are. This is a good example of companies doing something which will detract from the product for marketing reasons. There was no practical reason for the coffee to be so hot. Another example would be feeding cows salt, which makes them retain more water so they weigh more, even though they have no more actual meat. This renders their manure, which could otherwise make good fertilizer, useless.

That seems rather unlikely; the difference is only marginal. It's the taste that they were concerned with. —Casey J. Morris

What a ridiculous statement. I double dog dare you to look at a cup of hot water and a cup of cold water and tell me which is more voluminous. You can't. Mcdonalds served their coffee that hot so that it would still be hot when the customers got to work. This article is terribly POV, in the old lady's favor. Happy cricket 03:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Answers to common arguments in McDonald's Coffee Case

According to the The Physics Factbook, the best temperature at which to brew coffee is between 85 C and 93 C (176 F to 200 F). These temperature ranges also correspond to just about all home coffee makers sold today. However, the longer the coffee is exposed to those high temperatures the faster the organic matter breaks down. This produces the bitterness so often found in coffee.

The question of expansion is moot since the average temperature at which McDonalds keeps their coffee is approximately the same as coffee makers found in homes today. But, for the sake of argument let's assume the following:

• Diameter of an 8 oz McDonalds coffee cup (near the top) is 3 in (7.68 cm).
• Cylinder height = h
• Formula for a cylinder's volume is Vc = h x pi x r^2
• 8 oz (US liquid) of coffee is approximately 2.366 x 10^-4 m^3
• Average McDonalds coffee temperature (Tmc) = 89 C
• Hypothetical average coffee temperature for sensitive mouths (Ts) = 60 C
• Volume Coeffecient of thermal expansion of water (B) = 210 x 10^-6 C^-1
• Change in Volume = Vd (delta)
• Change in Temperature = Td (delta)
• Formula for the change in volume is Vd = B x Vo x Td

Plugging the numbers into the formula give us:

Vd = (210 x 10^-6)(2.366 x 10^-4)(89 C - 60 C)
Vd = 1.44x10^-6m^3 or 1.44 cm^3

The change in the level of the coffe in the cup (when full) is solved by finding h.

h = Vc / (pi x r^2)
h = (1.44 cm^3) / (3.14.15 x 3.84^2)
h = 0.031 cm or 0.31 mm

The change in volume between these two temperatures is therefore negligible.

--
Larry Snider
eSnider.net

You are confusing serving and brewing temperatures. It may be customary to brew coffee at such high temperatures; it is not to serve and drink it, particularly in flimsy recepticles FrFintonStack 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You might prefer coffee that stood around for a while. You are part of a negligible minority. Most people want their coffee fresh. There are plenty of methods known to cool down a cup of coffee once you have it: Stirring, blowing over it, dropping some ice into it, pouring more milk in etc. etc. etc. Which, incidentally, is the comment with which a british judge laughed a plaintiff and her attorney out of court. McD isn't called a fast-food restaurant in vain. They need to get their stuff out to the customer. "Sorry Ma'am, you'll have to wait for five more minutes for the coffee to cool down" is not something leading to customer satisfaction. The coffee, however, is -in all but a negligible number of cases. We don't build planes for the case that all engines fail and the cockpit crew suffers a collective nervous breakdown all at the same time either. --OliverH 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so feel free to tell us why plenty of other fast food places had and have no problem serving fresh coffee at temperatures that won't scald.--71.112.234.168 06:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"A good holding temperature is right around 185 degrees," said Steven Balsarini, roast master for Pear's Coffee on South 156th Street, which buys green coffee beans and roasts them to sell to restaurants. "That's just to keep the flavor together. Honestly, it would cause burns." "Coffee: A Hot Topic $2.9 Million for Burns Stirs Debate Coffee Temperatures" KRIS MULLEN September 11, 1994, The Omaha World-Herald Apokrif 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

" There are plenty of methods known to cool down a cup of coffee once you have it: Stirring, blowing over it, dropping some ice into it, pouring more milk in etc. etc. etc"

From the article:

"so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap."

So the was burn't because she performed an act (removing the lid) which would have been compulsory if she had wanted to cool the coffee with milk or ice. Apokrif 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally assumed that the cup will be in a stable, safe location when the lid is pulled off to add milk/ice. The fact is SHE placed it in an unstable, dangerous place. That is NOT McDonalds fault.12.110.196.19 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Actual Data Point

Someone in my family was working at McDonald's about that time. She said many of the stores were switching from the usual brew-pot setups to single-serving equipment that used forced steam. These machines would yield a liquid at nearly the boiling point, if not actually superheated. She herself was burned by the equiment many times.

Whether or not you think it's negligent to put a liquid at a temperature that causes third-degree burns within seconds into flimsy cups and hand them out a window to motorists (who in 1992 typically had nowhere to put them but between their legs)

News Flash: the Car Cup Holder was invented sometime after 1992, according to some people...12.110.196.19 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

, no evidence has been given to support your premises that McDonald's brewing procedures are based on "the best temperature at which to brew coffee" or that the "average temperature at which McDonalds keeps their coffee is approximately the same as coffee makers found in homes today".

RESPONSE: Negligence goes both ways. Motorists who go to McDonalds know they will be receiving coffee in a flimsy cup and that it will be handed to them through a window. Therefore they have implicitly taken responsibility for the danger associated with these aspects of serving coffee. About the only thing a motorist might not know is how hot and dangerous the coffee is but I think even this is reasonably understood. Determining negligence and liability is not about protecting people from themselves.

Improved POV

I would say that the POV in this article is becoming fairly neutral. How/by whom is the decision made to take down the NPOV flag? --Mddake 09:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Martin Wisse took care of that. Thanks. --Mddake 02:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits for POV statements. The editor who wrote this should not make assumptions about what is clear to the readers, particularly involving cases that never saw litigation. Happy cricket 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence: "Phrased another way, more than 23,999,999 people managed to safely drink their cup of coffee for each complainant who did not." One, it's inaccurate, as the fact that only one in 24 million people complained does not indicate that only one in 24 million were injured; many people could have been lightly scalded and not complained. Two, the statistic "one in 24 million complained" speaks for itself, and I think the 23,999,999 figure is thrown in to mock the people who complained, and thus represents POV. user:lamontacranston 09:08, 28 July 2006

That's fine. Encyclopedias don't need "phrased another way" sentences. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

National Coffee Association of USA

I was suspicious of the claim about the National Coffee Association of USA; the link was broken, but I found the new page (the temp was slightly lower). Even given that they recommend that coffee be maintained at 180-185 degrees to maintain flavor, it's hard to understand how they can recommend coffee be served at that temperature when liquids above 140 degrees will scald. It would be nice to separate what evidence was presented in court versus what evidence Wikipedians dig up on the Web. This case seems simple enough: get a McDonald's rep on the stand and dare him to handle and drink coffee at 190 degrees. Did that happen? --Tysto 06:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That strategy worked wonders in the O.J. Simpson case. "If the man drinks the joe, the lawsuit has to go" or "If he don't drink it all, Mickey D's takes the fall" Dujang Prang 21:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why should he drink the coffee. Most people wait for their coffee to cool down before they drink it. That's normal. Also you make it seem like drinking coffee from McDonalds is like juggling knives and walking a tightrope. But millions of people drink coffee at McDonalds everyday without getting serious injuries. Hell I find it hard to believe that you have never drunk coffee at McDonalds unless you are not from the United States. It is not very unusual. I don't think a McDonald's rep would have a problem drinking and handling hot coffee. That would be like asking him to tie his shoe laces.

I juggle knives myself, but wouldn't and never have drunk coffee from McDonald's.

There's a difference between inherent, assumable, risk and outright danger. If I juggle knives carefully, my skill can prevent injury. No amount of skill can make scalding hot coffee not scald.

Coffee is intended to make contact with human tissue by its very nature. Nobody who sells me sharp knife can be presumed to know that I intend to juggle it and therefore is not reponsible for informing me of the risks inherent in the activity. ("a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind" knows that throwing and catching knives is an inherently risky activity)

Anyone selling brewed coffee which is served at scalding temperature is responsible for informing the customer that it is served at that temperature, because "a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind" could reasonably assume that coffee sold by the cup is in a state of fitness to be consumed. User:Pedant 22:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Any article that consists of over half of lists is usually misformatted. Lists should not be used to list things that are better shown as ordinary paragraphs. This article is no exception. The article should be reformatted a bit to remove the list markup and use normal paragraphs. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a change where someone inexplicably changed only one instance of "McDonald's" to "McDonalds." If there was some reason for the change, let me know.Lamontacranston 21:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm switching the 6 and 16 percent numbers as there is a reference to the 6 percent alone and it certainly seems more reasonable... If someone can find a stong reference to the 16 please feel free to revert - Acq3 23:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Jackpot Justice

I have a question. Isn't there a wellknown expression called "jackpot justice"? I have often this story and other - possibly urban legends - as examples of jackpot justice. So why does wikipedia not have an article about it? Medico80 14:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be addressed in Tort reform in the United States. Apokrif 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Liebeck's age

Does anyone know if Stella is alive now, and if not, when she died? Leonsedov 17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stella passed away on August 5, 2004 in Santa Fe, according to RootsWeb.com's Social Security Death Index search engine. CatraDhtem 19:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Kramer sues Starbucks on Seinfeld for a Hot Coffe.

Amount of awarded damages

"the jury awarded her US$2.7 million in damages. The award was reduced to $640,000 by the judge"

Isn't there a confusion between punitive damages and compensatory damages? I think the jury awarded $2.700,000 of punitive damages + $160,000 of compensatory damages, and that the judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, which made a total of $640,000. Apokrif 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000.

160,000 compensatory damages plus 480,000 equals 640,000 total settlement. User:Pedant 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The actual court case isn't even cited in this article. Someone needs to correct this (I'm having a hard time finding it myself)

Which factual parts of this case are in dispute? The article is kinda messy—it's not even clear which court tried the case (it was a NM state court). Also the name appears to be wrong, it should be Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. The case was settled before appeal, so it was not in a published reporter, and it tends to be cited as "Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)."

I'd like to work on this a bit more because the caricature of this case is etched into people's minds, and they ought to know more about it. For now, I'm just going to add a proper cite and move it. Cool Hand Luke 20:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Precise nature of the burns

The article only mentions that she suffered third degree burns over "six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent." I've long heard that she suffered third degree burns over her genitals specifically--if true, It think this bears mentioning... even if it was the "lesser burns" on her genitals, I still think it bears mentioning.

$600k seems a bit excessive for a burned leg, but if the poor woman really had third degree burns over her clitoris and the rest of her vulva, that amount suddenly seems rather inadequate.--Lode Runner 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the jury assessed her actual damages at $200,000 (minus $40K because she was 20% at fault)—the rest was to punish McDonnald's for its behaviour.

But you're right; the article doesn't mention the location of her burns. I swore that it included the same discrete language that several sources use; "thighs, buttocks, and groin." I'll add that in. I think Nader's book might be more specific, so I'll have to check it out again. A couple of law review articles suggest the specific extent injuries of her genitals, but they only cite general background of the case with no specific reference. It's not obvious these are reliable sources.

For your consideration:

• "Of course there was more to this story than the corporate propagandists were willing to tell. The spilled coffee was so hot -- 180-190 degrees -- that the skin on Ms. Liebeck's vulva and thighs literally melted off her body down to the fatty tissue in three to seven seconds. She spent eight days in the hospital, in agonizing pain. She needed extensive skin grafts. To this day, there is permanent scarring over sixteen percent of her body -- all this from a spilled cup of coffee." – Peter G. Angelos ("a practicing attorney"), "1996 Spring Commencement Speech", 27 U. Balt. L.F. 19, 21
• "A balancing test must be undertaken to decide whether the cost of changing the policy is outweighed by the likelihood of a large punitive damage award. But defense counsel must consider the jury's tendency to act like a policymaking body itself, as it did in the Liebeck case. A careful review of the plaintiff's settlement offer should be considered in light of the emotional impactof the harm in the case at bar. It should be obvious that when an elderly woman has to undergo skin grafts to repair her genitals that the defendant should do everything it can to settle out of court- such a case should never be brought before a jury in the first place. Liebeck should teach an important lesson to defendants-never be disrespectful toward a plaintiff." – Daniel M. Weddle, INSURANCE LAW ANNUAL: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE TO LITIGATING PUNITIVE DAMAGES AFTER BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 47 Drake L. Rev. 661, 679 (1999)

I wouldn't mind if someone added more specific language, but I'd like it to be from a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 06:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks serves their drip coffee at 180 degrees or higher to this day -- my fiance was a barista for a year, and worked at several other coffee places before that. Every time I see people bring up that attorney's argument, it irks me. There's *nothing* abnormal about serving drip coffee at that temperature. It's served hot so it'll still be hot by the time you get to work. 71.146.130.162 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters how commonplace the practice is. Something can be very popular (e.g. lead pipes, or asbestos insulation) and still be very dangerous. Regardless of the justification, regardless of the convenience (personally, I think it's a pain in the ass. I generally want to drink my coffee right away, and if for some reason it does get cold we have perfectly capable microwaves both at work and at home), I don't think your average person who buys coffee at those places realizes that it's capable of inflicting third degree burns (I know I didn't.) There's a difference between "ouch, that's hot! Damn, might be tender for a few days." And "Sorry m'am, you're going to require reconstructive surgery on your genitals because the water was so hot it actually destroyed deep skin tissue." --Lode Runner 05:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Other forms of negligence?

Just curious if anyone else had run across this--that the temperature of the coffee wasn't the only form of negligence. The report I read (which claimed to be drawn from the case filings, and which I saw well over a year ago--so, I'm sorry, but I don't remember the source) was that this McD's was using lids that didn't fit properly and cups that became structurally unsound when filled with such high-temperature liquids--and that these were both things that McD's corporate was aware of and had done nothing to fix. If anyone could find the truth/falsity of if those claims were made, it would be a good thing to add into the entry either way (since there WAS something going around making those claims). Also...if those things were the case, it would make the jury's punitive award make sense. Baltham 02:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

None of these claims were made. The claims were (1) all beverages above 140 degrees are "unreasonably dangerous"; and (2) McDonald's warnings were insufficient. -- TedFrank 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Standardised °F and °C

I have gone through and standardised °F and °C within the article. Coming from the UK where °F has been virtually phased out as with much of the world, the article was almost incomprehensible. Since this is a US-centric article I've listed F values before C. JameiLei 12:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea in principle: the problem is that you've changed text directly quoting court opinions. Feel free to redo within the Wikipedia text, and to add bracketed insertions in the quotes of court opinions, but you can't change the quote itself. -- THF 15:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably not THIRD-degree burns

This story appears to contain a factual error in stating that the woman suffered THIRD-degree burns. This is not possible with hot coffee. She suffered SECOND-degree burns.

The link from "third-degree" burns goes to another Wikipedia page that explains burns: "Third-degree burns additionally have charring of the skin, and produce hard, leather-like eschars. An eschar is a scab that has separated from the unaffected part of the body. Frequently, there is also purple fluid. These types of burns are often painless because nerve endings have been destroyed in the involved areas."

I'm fairly certain that water-based liquids cannot cause charring; that can occur only with a flame or something hotter than boiling water.

67.149.215.27 23:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)No user name (Bill Blinn)

I would say the article on burns is confusing then. Destroyed skin is indeed possible with scalding liquids. Liebeck needed skin grafting and debridement treatment, then the burn must have been worse than second degree burns. Check this page. --J-Star 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The text in the wikipedia article is not entirely correct. "Charring", 'per se' is not necessarily a component of third degree burns to the skin, but rather "destruction of tissue". Liebeck did indeed suffer 3rd degree burns, you can safely rely on a vascular surgeon to diagnose a burn properly. Remember, we cannot rely on wikipedia as a source, ironically it is not what is considered a reliable source. User:Pedant 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue

• Despite the serious nature of the injuries in question and evidence of McDonald's knowledge of the hazard of serving coffee at 185 degrees, the case entered popular understanding as an example of frivolous litigation

This sentence violates WP:NPOV: it takes a side and implies that Liebeck should not be viewed as frivolous litigation. I am restoring the old Cool Hand Luke version. THF 11:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Still POV

Another issue I noticed is the tone is very different from this article which briefly covers the same topic: [1] The introduction to Liebeck v. Mcdonald's Restaurants states "a jury awarded $2.9 million to a woman who burned herself with hot coffee." In the other article it says Stella "suffered third-degree burns from hot coffee that she ordered at one of the company's drive-thrus" and rather than saying she spilled hot coffee on herself the other article says "the entire contents spilled into her lap." After reading both articles, I get the feeling one is written in a tone that makes her case sound reasonable, while this one seems to support the opposing view. I think it should be for the reader to decide whether the case was indeed frivolous, not the writers of the article. I noticed some people have come here to discuss the case because they are still confused about how she could have won the case if indeed it was as frivolous as the article sounds. so perhaps it is POV. Avigon 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The POV problem was with the McDonald's legal cases article, which relied entirely on the (fictional) ATLA account of the case. I've conformed it with this article, which puts forward both points of view, and thus does not violate POV. Is there a particular idea that is omitted, or a particular statement you contest? The fact of the matter is that Stella did spill coffee on herself; it is POV to take responsibility away from her by improperly phrasing it in the passive voice, and Strunk & White teach us the proper way to phrase it is in the active voice. The coffee didn't spill by itself, and McDonald's didn't spill the coffee on Liebeck. There's a reason that the majority POV is that the lawsuit is frivolous; the minority point of view is also well-represented in this article. THF 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't bad right now. A bit more could be said about the verdict, but I think the "evidence presented to jury" section explains the jury's reasoning well enough. I recall reading that the jurors were quite turned off by the testimony of Christopher Appleton—not so much the factual content of his testimony as the perception that he was callous. I didn't include it because it was poorly sourced, but I think it would have gone a long way toward explaining the verdict. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Liebeck's date of death

I think this primary source personal detail should be left out of the article per WP:NPF. This is just not relevant here, and nobody covered the event of her passing in any case, which presents a WP:WEIGHT problem. We should error on the side of privacy and keep it out. Cool Hand Luke 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I was curious whether she was still alive or not, found nothing on Google or Usenet (including this page), and had to go look it up on the SSDI myself. It's public information that isn't subject to any controversy or dispute. WP:WEIGHT specifies opinions and points of view, not documented facts. 68.45.106.216 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Information about unreported and unpublished cases

According to PATRICK S. RYAN, Revisiting the United States Application of Punitive Damages: Separating Myth from Reality: “The case is not reported or published, which means that under United States law it cannot be considered as valid precedent for any legal purpose.Westlaw has a simple one-page “unpublished” version available as part of its database service. Lexis-Nexis has no record of the case. Regarding the appeal, there is nothing, either in published, unpublished, or any other unofficial or official form” Is it possible, to get reliable data on a case, to request a copy (perhaps by e-mail) of the judgment form the court, instead of relying on commercial services? How do Lexis-Nexis or Westlaw get their data? Apokrif 22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad citation

Resolved

The first citation, linking to nmcourts.com, is a bad link. I'm not sure if there are any other legal summaries of this case available (I'm assuming that's what this link originally pointed to), but the one there right now just leads to a 404 error. Jetpac7890 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I updated the URL. The lookup required getting by an "I Accept" screen, so it may not be directly viewable. In any case, I copied the cited material so accessing the cited site itself is required only for verification. --TJRC (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like that link query is not going to stick. I think it's useful, though, for users who care to copy the docket number. Cool Hand Luke 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Warning Label on the Cup

I'd be interested to know what exactly the warning label said on the cup. If the warning label had specified that the content was especially hot and spilling it could cause burns does that change the case? If I buy a knife and the warning label says "sharp object don't allow blade contact with your skin" and forever whatever I allow the knife blade contact with my skin and I cut myself, is the maker of the knife liable? Could McDonalds ever be allow to serve coffee at a temp of 180 - 190F if a warning was attached - something that said "Coffee in this cup is 180 - 190F. If you spill it on yourself will you get burned."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:33, January 21, 2008 (UTC)