Do you think we as a society need to legislate common sense and pass laws and regulations requiring disclosure labels and notices warning people of obvious potential risks associated with certain products? For example, should there be a law requiring a disclosure that coffee may be hot—what about the labels on your mattress or furniture—think about all of the money spent labeling products to warn of certain risks. Is this needed?

Here is some advice on the ethicality of disclosure labels and notices of warnings. First and foremost, the issue about which you are inquiring is more of a civil than criminal one. So, essentially, by companies putting warning labels on their products, they are protecting themselves in the case of an eventual lawsuit.
This is important when it comes to liability; the example you list, labels on hot coffee, was inspired by the McDonald’s case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. This case was thought to be frivolous because it should be self-evident that coffee is hot and is seen by some as an example for why tort reform is necessary (more on tort reform in a bit).
However, for products such as McDonald’s coffee, there is essentially no downside to listing the warning. People (at least in general) know that coffee is hot and exercise caution when handling it. However, by using the warning label, if a customer spills the coffee on themselves, it is much harder for the customer to argue in court that they are worthy of damages, as they were warned the coffee was hot. At the end of the day, the pennies (or less) it costs for a company to provide the labels is nothing compared to what they could be liable for in court.
A note on tort reform: tort reformers generally want to reduce the ability for people to sue companies for damages as a way to compensate for malfeasance or other wrongdoings by the company. It may seem ridiculous that a person can sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves, but tort reform can be a slippery slope. Other companies (e.g., insurance companies) commonly argue for tort reform. If tort reform materialized, insurance companies could potentially not pay for a procedure that could be deemed “experimental” or “unproven” and then avoid a suit by the patient or their family in the event of the patient’s serious illness or death, even if the illness or death could have been reduced or avoided by getting the treatment in the first place.
Works Cited
Liebeck v. McDonald's Rest., P.T.S. Inc., No. CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994).
https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds/