The McMahons have two theories of liability under Indiana law (which the parties agree supplies the rule of decision): (i) that Bunn failed to warn consumers about the severity of burns that hot coffee can produce; and (ii) that any coffee served at more than 140 degrees F is unfit for human consumption (and therefore a defective product) because of its power to cause burns more severe than consumers expect, aggravated by its potential to damage the cup and thus increase the probability of spills. After the parties agreed to accept the decision of a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. sec.636(c), the court entered summary judgment for the defendants. 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 22318. The magistrate judge observed that both McMahons conceded during their depositions that "hotness" was one of the elements they value in coffee and that they sought out hot coffee, knew it could burn, and took precautions as a result. These concessions--which any adult coffee drinker is bound to make--foreclose the possibility of recovery, the opinion concluded. Other, similar suits have come to the same summary end, see Barnett v. Leiserv, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ga.), affirmed without opinion, 137 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 1997); Greene v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., 966 F. Supp. 416 (W.D. Va. 1997); Lamkin v. Braniff Airlines, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 30 (D. Mass. 1994); Oubre v. E-Z Serve Corp., 1998 La. App. Lexis 1392 (5th Cir. 1998); Huppe v. Twenty-First Century Restaurants of America, Inc., 497 N.Y.S.2d 306 (Sup. Ct. 1985), although one published opinion has held that a claim of this sort is triable, see Nadel v. Burger King Corp., 1997 Ohio App. Lexis 2144 (1st Dist.), review denied, 684 N.E.2d 706 (1997), and a suit in New Mexico (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc.) produced a widely publicized jury verdict of some $3 million but not a published opinion (the case was settled before appeal).
Click to expand...
