Must the Law Protect the Ignorant Against Themselves?

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 causing hot coffee to run between his leg and his sock creating a second-degree burn.

4. 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 hot, by adding some ice or cold water to the brewed beverage. Mrs. Nadels tasted the coffee and found it too hot to drink; through that action, she gained sufficient information to know that she needed to take precautions to keep her children and, ostensibly, herself safe from harm due to a hot cup of coffee in a flimsy fast food container. In fact, R.C 2307.76(B) provides that "[a] product is not defective due to lack of warning" or because of an absence of warning about "an open and obvious risk or a risk that is a matter of common knowledge." The lack of foresight and caution on the part of the parents is not at issue in this case, but in my view, it is the cause of the accidental burn to their son's leg.

A. The name and citation of the case:

Koepke et al., Appellants, v. Crosman Arms Company et al., Appellees; Gentry et al.. No. C-880486

B. The name of the court which decided the case:

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County

C. The year of the decision:

September 27, 1989

D. The facts of the case:

A boy, Scott Wilson, brought his BB gun to the house of 10-year-old Greg Gentry. Several boys were shooting BB guns at targets in the Gentry's backyard. Greg Gentry picked up a BB gun and shot it toward a tree house in which 13-year-old James Koepke was standing. Koepke was shot in the eye by a BB. The Koepke's filed an action of several claims of negligence against Scott Wilson, Greg Gentry, and Scott Wilson's mother and stepfather, and product liability claims against the Crossman's Arms Company and Swallen's Inc.

E. The issue of the case:

No claims were made that the BB gun had design defects, so the Appellants argument based on the Knitz v. Minster Macine Co (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2nd 460, 23 O.O. 3rd 403, 432 N.E. 2d 814 did not apply. Indeed, in Cafeny v. Raven Arms Co. (S.D. Ohio 1987), 665 F. Supp 530 C.A. 6, 1988) 849 F.2d 608, affirmed that the Knitz risk-benefit theory of liability is only applicable when a product has functioned improperly, not when products have functioned as intended." And, the appellants argued that the appellees were negligent in failing to warn expected users of the BB gun about the foreseeable dangers of it use. The court disagreed based on the rule that manufacturers and vendors do not have a duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious to the user of a product. Indeed, Greg Gentry testified that he was fully aware of the danger when he shot the toward the appellant, and that he was familiar with BB guns, had used his father's BB gun for over a year, and knew he was to be careful with the gun and not aim it toward anyone because injury could result.