California Cases Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413 (Cal. 1978) Soule v. General Motors, 8 Cal.

4th 548 (Cal. 1994) Campbell v. General Motors, 32 Cal. 3d 112 (Cal. 1982) Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 43 Cal. 4th 56 (Cal. 2008) Carlin v. Superior Court (Upjohn Co.), 13 Cal. 4th 1104 (Cal. 1996)

Wright v. Stang Mfg. Co., 54 Cal. 4th 1218 (Cal. 1997) Bunch v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 123 Cal. 4th 1278 (Cal. 2004) American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court, 255 Cal. Rptr. 280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)

Obvious danger rule: No need to warn of known risks under negligence or strict liability. Long warnings and too many warnings make warnings less effective Facts: Pharmaceuticals, issue of requiring physicians to warn patients Adequacy of warning is a question of fact for the jury. Adequacy of warning is a question of fact for the jury. Inherently unsafe common consumer products granted immunity from strict products liability. Enumerated items are: sugar, castor oil, alcohol, and butter.

The foregoing evidence very strongly indicates that the Legislature intended to immunize manufacturers of sugar, castor oil, alcohol, tobacco and butter from product liability suits. 255 Cal. Rptr. at 284.

Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal. 4th 539 (Cal. 1993)

P cannot claim warning defect if plaintiff did not read warning

Other Cases Holowaty v. McDonalds, 10 F. Supp. 2d (D. Minn. 1998) 1. Under Minnesota law, coffee not defectively designed by virtue of temperature 2. Risks of burns sufficiently open and obvious, no duty to warn 3. Alleged failure to warn not cause of injury Facts: Cup had warning. Moving vehicle, drove down steep decline, cup tipped and spilled. A product is not defective merely because it is capable of causing injury. . . . Heat is an inherent feature of a cup of coffee. Mentions knives, matches.

Bouher v. Aramark, 131 Ohio App. 3d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

Nadel v. Burger King, 119 Ohio App. 3d 695 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)

1. Coffee maker not defective under consumer-expectations test (overrules Nadel) 2. Adequate warning on coffee maker 1. Ps conduct which led to spill in car not intervening, superseding cause 2. Fact issues as to whether coffee excessively hot, and was unreasonably dangerous without warning a. Issue is whether coffee was so exceedingly hot that serving it without a warning of unforeseen danger was unreasonable b. Question of fact whether seconddegree burns can result from spilled coffee is an unforeseen danger 1. No duty to warn of dangers of hot coffee 2. Coffee maker not defectively designed Facts: Moving vehicle, removed plastic lid and tried to pour coffee into another cup. Spilled in lap and caused burns. Warning consumers about a surprising feature that is potentially dangerous yet hard to observe could be useful, but the record lacks any evidence that 179 F is unusually hot for coffee Any person severely injured by any product could make a claim . . . that they did not recognize the risks ex ante as clearly as they do after the accident. (Easterbrook, J.)

McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic, 150 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 1998) (from Ind.)

Oubre v. E-Z Serve, Corp., 713 So. 2d 818 (La. Ct. App. 1998)

1. Coffee that spilled in lap in car was not unreasonably hot 2. Store had no duty to warn of hazard of hot coffee 3. Stores undisputed evidence established that coffee was within industry standards optimum temperature 4. Customer a frequent user of coffee and had

purchased coffee from that store before and after incident

Other Courts (not coffee) Todd v. Societe BIC, S.A., 9 F.3d 1216 (7th Cir. 1993) (from Ill.) Product liability of butane lighter, with warning on Extended warnings present several lighter, KEEP OUT OF REACH OF difficulties, first among them that, the CHILDREN more text must be squeezed onto the product, the smaller the type, and the less likely is the consumer to *1219 read or remember any of it. Only pithy and bold warnings can be effective. (Easterbrook, J.)

CA Cases say Adequacy of Warning is Generally an Issue of Fact for Jury Wright v. Stang Mfg., Co., 54 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) Bunch v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 123 Cal. App. 4th 1278 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)

[T]he extent to which a manufacturer must anticipate the misuse of its product and the adequacy of a product warning present issues of fact.