Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc.

1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Emil moved for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. BK also moved for summary judgment and pointed to evidence in the depositions that appellants knew the coffee was hot and that coffee was purchased and served as a hot beverage. It also contended under the circumstances that Evelyn’s and Paul’s actions were intervening, superseding causes precluding any actionable negligence on its part. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Christopher Nadel received second degree burns from coffee spilling on his right foot purchased at Burger King by his grandmother Evelyn Nadel. The Nadel’s brought suit against Burger King and franchise owner Emil, Inc, for product liability for a defectively designed product and for failure to warn of the dangers of handling a liquid served as hot as their coffee.

The court granted both the Burger King owner and Burger King Corporation request for motion of summary of judgments. The Nadel’s appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on the products liability and related punitive damage claims. Issues of fact remained as to whether the coffee was defective due to the heat at which it was served and whether an adequate warning existed. Because the alleged failure to warn involved a product, not premises, summary judgment was properly granted as to premises liability. Plaintiffs’ claims of emotional damage were inadequate to support their claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. 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 case was not of negligent infliction of emotional distress because the records contained no evidence of serious emotional distress and the spill of the coffee wasn’t caused by Burger King. The tort approved by the court was for punitive damages. The parties could not prove if the coffee was too hot to serve. 5. According to the case, why didn’t the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims?

Barbara Thompson purchased a Sunbeam Mixmaster at Wal-Mart. Ms. Thompson ring finger was caught by one of the beaters when she was attempting to fix one of the beaters that wasn’t inserted correctly, while the mixer was still on. It was stated that the beater got hung on a ring, the finger was lodged in between the beaters, which resulted in her finger having to be amputated in the knuckle area. E. the issue of the case (5 points)

Plantiff:
1. defective manufacture and/or construction
2. defective design and/or formulation
3. inadequate warnings
4. nonconformance with manufacture’s representations
5. Wal-Mart for supplier’s liability
6. breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for use
7. action for breach of the express warranties that the product was free from defects in workmanship and materials
8. claim of common law product liability
9. cause of action for strict product liability
10. claim against all defendants for deceptive acts and unconscionable practices in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“CSPA”)
11. punitive damages against Sunbeam and Simatelex
12. cause of action asserts a claim on behalf of Mr. Thompson against all defendant for loss of consortium
13. asserts a claim for breach of implied or express contract against Wal-Mart
14. common law negligence against all defendants

Defendants:
15. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs’ claims. F. the “decision” of the case (5 points)
Responses are corresponding to the numbered claims above:
1. Granting summary judgment on manufacturing defect claim where plaintiff failed to present evidence showing that his injuries were caused by a manufacturing defect and not by other possibilities, such as his own negligence. 2. Summary judgment granted on defective design claim where plaintiff presented no expert analysis or other evidence demonstrating that some aspect of the design was defective). No genuine dispute has been shown to exist in regard to the claim of defective design or formulation, and Sunbeam and Simatelex are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 3. No genuine dispute has been shown to exist in regard to plaintiffs’ claim of inadequate warnings, and Sunbeam and Simatelex are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

The hazard was created by Mrs. Thompson bringing her hand into close proximity with the moving beaters, which caused her ring finger to be pulled into the two beaters. The risk of injury from placing one’s hands near rapidly turning beaters is an open and obvious risk or a risk that is a matter of common knowledge. 4. There is no evidence that Sunbeam or Simatelex breached any express warranty to plaintiffs. No evidence of any express warranties which may have been made in connection with the sale of the mixer is included in the record. Sunbeam and Simatelex are entitled to summary judgment on this claim. 5. Wal-Mart is entitled to summary judgment on the fifth cause of action. 6-9; 13&14. Warranty claims are preempted by the OPLA.

10. Plaintiffs do not address defendants’ arguments concerning the CSPA claims in their memorandum contra defendants’ motion for summary judgment on these claims. There is no evidence in the record that defendants engaged in any unfair or deceptive act or practice, as described in Section 1345.02(A), or any unconscionable act or practice as described in Section 1345.03(A). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims under the CSPA. 12. Since this court has determined that defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Mrs. Thompson’s substantive claims, defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on the twelfth cause of action, Mr. Thompson’s loss of consortium claim. The final judgment is that all of the summary judgments were in favor of the defendants for all of the plaintiff claims. G. the principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case (5 points) The principle of law this case was use for is the Ohio Product Liability Act. 2307.74. When product is defective in manufacture or construction

A product is defective in manufacture or construction if, when it left the control of its manufacturer, it deviated in a material way from the design specifications, formula, or performance standards of the manufacturer, or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same design specifications, formula, or performance standards. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction as described in this section even though its manufacturer exercised all possible care in its manufacture or construction. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2307.74

H. Following the directions in the library, download a Word document copy of the case, and include your name in the “note” section of the download. Attach a copy of the document with your assignment this week. (10 points) (Your name must be in the automatically populated “note” area for full points for this.).