Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    nadel-v-burger-king-corp

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    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 itself in Doc Sharing. Read the actual case and then answer questions 1 - 7 which are listed under the assignment tab. Your answers are to be in a Word document which you are to upload in to the Dropbox. Please separate your answers in numbered paragraphs that correspond to the questions.

    Once you upload it, you'll see a Turnitin rating. Don't worry if the percentage puts you in the yellow or orange range. DO worry if it's red. Nothing but quotes or copy and past from the cases is not OK. I want to know what YOU think in your own words.. If there is no number and you get an icon that looks like a red nut and bolt, that means I won't be able to open. it. You'll need to try it again in a different format.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:16 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-policy-and-implementation/nadel-burger-king-corp-610961

    Attachments

    Solution Preview

    Do you think the court of appeals agreed that Burger King Corporation was immune to the product liability claims?

    I believe that the court of appeals did not agree with Burger King Corporation in regard to the product being immune to product liability claims because it was not in favor of granting summary judgment based upon the sum of the facts in the case. Product liability is placated upon issues that revolve around the design of the product and whether there is a defect to this design, and the court didn't determine that there was summary judgment to prevent the examination of these facts.

    1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (10 points)

    Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton ...

    Solution Summary

    Nadel-versus-burger-king-corporation is examined.

    $2.19

    ADVERTISEMENT