[akira2501]

The jury made a number of findings in the case, one of which was that the warning on the cup wasn't large enough nor sufficient enough to convey the dangers of the temperature of coffee that they serve.

I'm sure they also took into consideration that Stella Liebeck originally asked for $20,000 for damages and had tried to negotiate several times before the case went to trial; she clearly went to some length to avoid this.

[SilasX]

>The jury made a number of findings in the case, one of which was that the warning on the cup wasn't large enough nor sufficient enough to convey the dangers of the temperature of coffee that they serve.

So what warning difference resulted from this case? And would Liebeck really have acted any differently had that been the warning all along?

[akira2501]

What warning difference? It's hard to find any definitive answers, but the case happened in 1992. Based upon my own recollections, this was the time where every fast-food chain started putting warnings on everything. McDonald's even added warnings to their hot apple pies and other "served hot" foods.

Would Liebeck have acted differently? That's not the objective of the jury in this case, especially considering that McDonald's conceded that their warnings were likely inadequate. To the extent that it is relevant, the jury did find Stella Liebeck 20% at fault for the accident and so the damage award was adjusted accordingly.

[SilasX]

I'm just asking the natural follow-up question to the claim that McDonald's is partially at fault for insufficient warning.

If you believe that Liebeck would have done the same thing with or without the improvement to the warning, you can't really blame the substandard warning.