For this assignment, you will need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller Library, from the Student Resources area under Course Home.
Go to Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name on that document, and answer the questions.
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)

3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points)
Plaintiff child was burned by spilled restaurant coffee. Plaintiffs, the child and his mother, grandmother, and father, filed an action in breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence against defendants, the restaurant franchisor and franchisee. The trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The spilled coffee was not so unforeseeable as to constitute an intervening cause. Summary judgment was proper for the breach of warranty claims because they were pre-empted by the Ohio Products Liability Law. 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. The action was remanded for further proceedings.

4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points)

5. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points)

6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points)
Now, in the library, click the “Shepardize” button in the top right of the LexisNexis page while on the case. This provides you with all of the cases which have used Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case as “precedent” since its publication. Out of the cases listed, pick one, click the link, read the case, and provide the following information:
A. the name and citation of the case (5 points);
William M. Caserta, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co., Defendant-Appellee
B. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points);
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY
C. the year of the decision (2 points);
June 30, 2000, Rendered

D. the facts of the case (5 points);
Appellant challenged the decision of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), granting a directed verdict in favor of appellee on appellant's products liability claim, in which he asserted that a ladder manufactured by appellee collapsed because it was defective in design.
E. the issue of the case (5 points); Appellant purchased a ladder manufactured by appellee. He sustained injuries after the ladder collapsed while he was on it to repair his roof. Appellant provided sufficient evidence to allow the jury to deliberate on the product's liability claim. His own testimony established an issue of the ladder's unsafe and unexpected product performance and, therefore, established a claim that the ladder contained a design defect. Although there could have been other reasons for the ladder to collapse, appellee could raise such contentions as defenses at trial, but the contentions did not mandate a directed verdict against appellant. Under the "consumer expectation" standard, appellant was only required to provide sufficient evidence that the ladder failed to perform in a safe and expected manner.

F. the “decision” of the case (5 points);
The court reversed, holding that a directed verdict for appellee was improper because appellant established his claim of a design defect under the consumer expectation standard.

G. the principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case (5 points); and

H. following the directions in the library, download a Word document copy of the case, and include your name in the “note” section of the download. Attach a copy of the document with your assignment this week. (10 points) (Your name must be in the automatically populated “note” area for full points for this.).
Thus, you will have two deliverables in the Week 3 Dropboxes: the case with your name on it, and your Word document with your answers. Submit them to the correct Dropbox.
See the Syllabus section "Due Dates for Assignments & Exams" for due date information.

Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc., 119 Ohio App. 3d 578, 695 N.E.2d 1185 (1997)