Case Scenario:
Go to the Nadel v. Burger King case in Doc Sharing. Read the case and answer these questions in a Word document.
Problem 1. What court decided the case in the assignment?
Problem 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment?
Problem 3. Briefly state the facts of this case.
Problem 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress?
Problem 5. What tort did the court approve?
Problem 6. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims?
Problem 7. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
Step 1: 1st, you are to read the question Here is a copy:
Christopher Nadel was in the car with his father, Paul, and his grandmother, Evelyn, when they pulled into Burger King for breakfast. Christopher was seated in the center of the front seat, between Paul and Evelyn; two of Christopher's classmates were in the back seat. The group ordered several breakfast sandwiches at the drive-thru as well as two cups of coffee. Evelyn was burned on her right leg by the coffee when she tasted it to see how hot it was. As she was placing the coffee back in the carrier, Paul pulled out onto the street and Christopher began to scream that he was being burned. Either one or both cups of coffee had spilled onto Christopher's foot and Christopher was subsequently treated for second-degree burns to his right foot.
The Nadels, on behalf of Christopher, sued the owner of the particular Burger King franchise that they stopped at and Burger King Corporation itself, alleging, among other claims, 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.
Both the owner of the Burger King and Burger King Corporation moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted both motions. Burger King Corporation argued that it was immune to the product liability claims because it was not a manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the coffee. The Nadels appealed. Think about these questions as you read the case. (You don't need to include answers to the in your assignment - they're just to get you thinking) Do you think the court of appeals agreed that Burger King Corporation was immune to the product liability claims? Why or why not? Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc., 119 Ohio App. 3d 578, 695 N.E.2d 1185 (1997). A copy of the actual case is in Doc Sharing.
Step 2 of the assignment is to access the case decision. Read the actual case and then answer questions 1 to 7 which are listed under the assignment tab. Please separate your answers in numbered paragraphs that correspond to the questions.