Court of Appeals of Ohio

1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.
2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that it appears from the evidence, when viewed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The facts of this case are as follows:

1. Paul Nadel was driving his family to school when they went to Burger King for breakfast 2. The coffee cups had lids on them and were placed in a cup holder when given to the Nadels. 3. Evelyn proceeded to taste the coffee through the flap of the lid, and found the coffee to be too hot. 4. The lid “jiggled off” and burned Mrs. Nadel on the leg. 5. She returned the cup to the cup holder.

6. After the cups were placed either on the floor or on the dashboard, Christopher (who was sitting in the middle in the front seat) was then burned from the cups tipping over when Paul made a left turn. Christopher suffered second degree burns. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) The Nadel’s were unable to show any emotional distress where a normal person would be unable to cope sufficiently with the mental distress due to the circumstances of the case. The tort approved by the court was a bystander to an accident states a cause of action for negligent infliction of serious emotional distress, the emotional injuries sustained must be found to be both serious and reasonably foreseeable, in order to allow recovery. Serious emotional distress describes emotional injury which is both severe and debilitating. Thus, serious emotional distress may be found where a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to cope adequately with the mental distress engendered by the
circumstances of the case.

5. According to the case, why didn’t the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points) The court didn’t approve summary judgment for product liability claims because the Nadel’s failed to show that a reasonable consumer would agree with them that coffee brewed at 175 degrees was excessively hot. They also failed to produce any evidence that the coffee was actually hotter than they expected other than Christopher receiving the second-degree burns. The articles they provided were not true evidence because documents that do not have an affidavit have no value as evidence. 6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) I disagree with this decision because Christopher suffered second-degree burns which is more than enough evidence to show that the coffee was too ho. No warning was given to the family by the employee, and Burger King lacked to have the manufacturer of their coffee cups place a warning on the cups. A lot of cases like this have occurred before, and now it is a requirement for the warning to be placed on containers. Some may argue that you know to proceed with caution when handling hot objects, and that Evelyn should not have placed the cup holder on the floor or the dashboard which would have prevented them from spilling.

A. the name and citation of the case (5 points);
JUSTIN C. THOMAS, Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.

Thomas v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35997 (N.D. Ohio May 9, 2006 B. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points);
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION C. the year of the decision (2 points);
2006
D. the facts of the case (5 points);
Thomas was sitting in the front-seat passenger of a 1997 Ford Expedition. Matthew Webster lost control of the car, when the car was overturned, Thomas was ejected from the car. E. the issue of the case (5 points)

The issue of the case is negligence, strict liability, and breach and/or implied warranties under Ohio Law. F. the “decision” of the case (5 points)
The Plaintiff filed neither opposition nor objection to the Defendant’s Motion, the Motion of Ford Motor Company for Partial Dismissal Based on Failure to State a Claim is granted and Count Three of the Complaint is accordingly dismissed. G. the principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case (5 points) Under Ohio law, the Ohio Product [*4] Liability Act (“OPLA”) preempts warranty claims for personal injuries caused by a product’s failure to conform due to a defect. Nadel v. BurgerKing Corp., 119 Ohio App. 3d 578, 585-586, 695 N.E.2d 1185 (1st Dist. 1997); Ohio Revised Code Section 2307.72(A). Thus, Plaintiff cannot sustain his claim for breach of implied warranty in tort.