Nadel Et Al
MGMT 520
Week 3 Assignment
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case
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
Week 3 Assignment
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case
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