SECTION TWO: A. The name and citation of the case (5 points);
McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., (7th Cir. Ind. 1998) 150 F. 3d 651, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 14926, CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15298 150 F. 3d 651 p.654 B. The name of the court which decided the case (3 points);
United States Court of Appeals C. The year of the decision (2 points);
Decided on July 2, 1998 D. The facts of the case (5 points);
McMahon (plaintiff) bought a cup of hot coffee from a gas station and spilled it on herself, causing second- and third-degree burns. McMahon sued Bunn-O-Matic Corp. (Bunn) (defendant), claiming that Bunn failed to warn consumers about the severity of hot coffee burns and that Bunn’s machine produced coffee that was defective because it was too hot for humans to drink. McMahon claimed that she knew hot coffee could burn, but that she was unaware of the potential severity of such burns. The district court awarded summary judgment to Bunn. McMahon appealed. E. The issue of the case (5 points);
The issue is does the failure of a manufacturer of a coffeemaker to inform consumer that the maker brews coffee which is extremely hot constitute a failure to warn or make the coffee a defective product unfit for human consumption? F. The “decision” of the case (5 points);
The decision of the case according to Easterbrook, J. no failure of a manufacturer of a coffeemaker to inform consumers that the maker brews coffee that is extremely hot does not constitute a failure to warn nor make the coffee a defective product unfit for human consumption. McMahon (Plaintiff) essentially asks this court to take judicial notice that 179 degree for coffee is abnormal, but this is not the sort of incontestable fact for which proof is unnecessary. Courts in prior decisions reported that the industry standard serving temperature is between 175 and 185 degrees, and, if this is