Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc.
Legal Brief
What court decided the case in the assignment?
Case C960489 was filed on 05/21/1997 and heard by the Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. On 07/07/1997, a discretionary appeal (Case 1997-1386) by Burger King was filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Case is Disposed.
According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment?
In order for a party to prevail on a motion for summary judgment in this case, it is necessary to show that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Specifically, the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (E) states that:
"When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but the party's response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party" (p. 148).
The documents and articles submitted by the Nadels did not provide any evidentiary value, as they were not sworn, certified, nor authenticated by affidavit.
3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in Lexis.
A family (the Nadels) purchased food and coffee from a Burger King drive through. One of the three children was sitting in the middle of the front seat. The father passed a cup holder with two hot cups of coffee over the child in the middle to the mother in the passenger seat. The mother opened and tasted the coffee, found it too hot to consume immediately, and then did some uncertain action that resulted in hot coffee being spilled on the leg of the boy in the front-middle, apparently...
According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve?
The claim for negligent emotional distress by the child's grandmother and father provides no evidence in the record that shows the type or degree of emotional distress that would cause a reasonable person with a normal constitution to be unable to adequately cope with the mental distress caused by the circumstances of the case.
5. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims?
The court found that the Nadels did meet their Civ. R. 56 burden through their allegation of wrongdoing which created an absolute liability on the manufacturer (Burger King) based on the fact that an injury did occur when its' project was used. Ohio statutes governing design-defect claims say that there must be foreseeable risks that exceed benefits, or risks that are more dangerous than "an ordinary customer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner." With respect to Emil's summary judgment, the boy's father testified that: 1) He knew coffee is served hot; 2) he expected the coffee to be served hot; 3) he knew Emil's coffee was served hot; 4) he knew that coffee would burn someone if it was spilled on him or her; and 5) he knew that whoever handled hot coffee needed to be careful not to spill it. Moreover, Emil's coffee was prepared according to the Burger King manual, which specified a temperature of 175 degrees farenheit.
6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
No. I agree with the dissenting opinion that the fact that coffee is hot and can burn is open and obvious. There was nothing to stop the Nadels from instructing the Burger King staff to make the coffee warm, not…
The court found that the appellants did not have a duty to warn of the dangers of using a BB gun, that despite the warnings labels on each BB gun package, and the policy of Swallen's not to sell BB guns to customers under the age of 18, the manufacturers and sellers had no duty to ensure that the BB guns were always used under adult supervision and in a safe manner. That to do so would make them insurers of their product and would be tantamount to judicial legislation, which is not a function of the court.
G. The principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case:
See, e.g., Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 317, 4 O.O.3d 466, 364 N.E.2d 267; Taylor v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co. (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 62, 520 N.E.2d 1375; Hall v. Sun Oil Petroleum Products (Sept. 28, 1984), Lucas App. No. L-84-084, unreported, 1984 WL 14378.
At this point in my life I am very interested in the study of constitutional law. I believe that the constitution is the instrument by which powers of the state are created and regulated, the rights of the people are enshrined and protected, the checks and balance between the branches of government are enforced. While I want to make changes in India's legal system in areas such as human rights,
Unconsented Facebook Behavioral User Research Facebook's 2012 involvement in a behavioral experiment on a series of its unknowing users Case Presentation There is much controversy with regard to Facebook's role in a scandal involving users being followed and exploited. The company is responsible for performing a study where 689,003 individuals on Facebook were manipulated in an attempt to determine how particular ideas influenced them. These respective users were divided in two groups:
Unfairness of Sex Offending Laws. Current laws that govern sex offences are placed under scrutiny for their potential unfairness towards those convicted. Often, these laws are excessively harsh against those who do not pose a current danger to public safety. There are few things as dire to the public mind as sex offences. Hence, current laws are as harsh as possible to protect what is perceived as the safety of the public
Law in Higher Education Case Name: Charleston v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois at Chicago 741 F.3d 769 (C.A.7, Ill.2013) R-Z. Procedural History: Charleston brought his 1983 action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; the case was argued on November 6, 2013 Law in Higher Education Gerald Charleston, a former medical student at University of Illinois College of Medicine, claimed that his dismissal for
contract is "a set of legally enforceable promises," (p. 304). From this simple definition, it would seem that a verbal contract did indeed exist between the two parties in question. Jacob did tell Henry he would be receiving an extra week of vacation. The form of the contract might be verbal, and the contract might indeed by informal and simple. However, there is a legal contract in this case
sorts of legal protections should BUG have. Bug automatically has protection of its trade secrets, which involve confidential issues such as product plans and new designs, any sort of business proceedings, and products under development prior to patent application. Bug does not need to file anything to maintain these rights other than take all reasonable precautions to keep them secret, such as informing employees that these are trade secrets, refraining