Thirteen courts have reported opinions looking at product-liability/failure-to-warn claims alleging that coffee was “unreasonably dangerous” and the provider was thus liable when the plaintiff spilled coffee on him- or herself. Twelve courts correctly …

The blogosphere continues to discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck McDonald’s coffee case. Overlawyered’s August 3 entry has prompted a couple of responses, prompting an August 4 entry. “Beldar” (Aug. 3) is reminded of similarly frivolous cases he defended a…

The blogosphere continues to discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck McDonald’s coffee case. Overlawyered’s August 3 entry has prompted a couple of responses. “Beldar” (Aug. 3) is reminded of similarly frivolous cases he defended against on behalf of the old H…

The blogosphere continues to discuss the Stella Liebeck coffee case. Overlawyered’s August 3 entry has prompted a couple of responses. “Beldar” (Aug. 3) is reminded of similarly frivolous cases he defended against on behalf of the old Houston Lighting …

Beldar wades into the debate between Professor Bainbridge, Ted Frank of Overlawyered, and the Curmudgeonly Clerk over the McDonald’s coffee case. As usual (being a vain, longwinded, crusty old trial lawyer), he makes it into something all about himself!

The Curmudgeonly Clerk returns to that hoary old stick of the tort reform movement: the McDonald’s hot coffee case. He does so in order to refute arguments from bloggers who have latched on to a couple of new-to-me ideas: 1)…