...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...
Words: 1465 - Pages: 6
...What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. 119 Ohio App.3d 578 (1997) 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) In order for a party to establish or prevail for a motion for summary judgment. They need to have sworn, certified, authenticated by affidavit. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) 1. Paul Nadel and Evelyn Nadel ordered coffee and breakfast on the morning of December 1993 2. Paul Nadel turned left spilling hot coffee on his sons foot that caused 2nd degree burns. 3. Burger King manual read that the coffee was to be served at One hundred seventy-five degrees. 4. Medical records were true copies of what was received through discovery. 5. No warning label on the coffee container. 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) “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to cope adequately with the mental distress engendered by the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment with respect to this claim”. They...
Words: 753 - Pages: 4
...1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points). Trial court made the decision 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 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) c. This is not a negligent infliction...
Words: 332 - Pages: 2
...1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points). Trial court made the decision 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 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) c. This is not a negligent infliction...
Words: 332 - Pages: 2
...Case Research Assessment Baker College Ruiz v. Safeway is a case involving both a Tort; a civil wrong that has caused someone else to suffer harm, and negligence also known as professional malpractice; the failure to meet a standard of conduct that is recognized by a profession (Freedictionary, 2012). Ruiz v. Safeway was filed by Michael and Lydia Ruiz against Safeway, Inc. under business code 25602.1 and it was eventually argued in First Appellate District, Division Five, Sonoma County, Super.Ct.No. SCV-245045 (Law.com, 2012). Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz’s complaint against Safeway involved the death of their son, Alexander Ruiz. Alexander was killed when, Dylan Morse, an 18-year-old alleged drunk driver struck his car. Mr. and Mrs. Ruiz wanted to hold Safeway responsible because, shortly before the accident, a Safeway clerk sold alcohol to Mr. Morse’s passenger, Ryne Spitzer (Law.com, 2012). On February 13, 2009 Morse and Spitzer made plans to attend a frat party. They both drank beer and rum until the party was broken up by the police around midnight. Morse and Spitzer returned to their dorm until Spitzer suggested that they buy more beer. Morse agreed and they arrived at the Safeway around 2 am. Upon entering the Safeway the two proceeded to the beer aisle and then went to check out. At checkout the clerk, Amy Gonzalez, who had 12 years of experience, asked for proof of age to purchase the alcohol. Spitzer gave her a California driver’s license that indicated that he was...
Words: 2118 - Pages: 9
...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...
Words: 1632 - Pages: 7
...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...
Words: 1632 - Pages: 7
...MGMT 520 Weekly Assignments Click Link Below To Buy: http://hwcampus.com/shop/mgmt-520/mgmt-520-weekly-assignments/ Or Visit www.hwcampus.com MGMT 520 Week 2 Assignment Administrative Regulations Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline...
Words: 1632 - Pages: 7
...judge asks you to prepare an essay, explaining to her why, under Illinois law, she should grant or dismiss the motion for summary judgment. Please help the judge. CASE SCENERIO: The plaintiff Alan was trying to catch a plane at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. He knew that he was late for his plane and so, he was running through the airport as fast as possible. Unfortunately, Alan does not see the banana peel that was lying on the floor in the middle of the concourse. He slipped on the banana peel and went sliding across the floor. He banged his head on a metal counter and suffered a severe head injury. Alan now files a lawsuit against the airport, which, we will assume, is in charge of maintaining the concourse, alleging negligence on the part of the Airport. A subsequent investigation revealed that the banana peel was brownish when Alan slipped on it. Alan states that he has no idea where the peel came from and why it ended up where it did. The Airport moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Alan has not alleged any evidence of negligence on the part of the airport. The Airport claims that it has no idea how the peel got there, but it could have been dropped a moment ago by another passenger, and that Alan can't disprove this possibility. The issue that must be decided is whether the airport’s motion for summary judgment should be granted or dismissed. Alan bears the burden of proving that the banana peel had in fact been lying in the floor...
Words: 956 - Pages: 4
...APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY 2009-Ohio-1734; 2009 Ohio App. LEXIS 1469 April 13, 2009, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] CIVIL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Case No. 07CV69537. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant personal injury victim filed suit against appellee store alleging that it was negligent in its cleaning of a coffee spill, upon which she slipped and fell. The store filed a motion for summary judgment. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) granted summary judgment for the store. The victim appealed. OVERVIEW: The victim argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider the incident report and corresponding witness statements. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by disregarding the document due to its lack of authenticity. There was no indication that the document, purported to be an employee witness statement, was sworn or certified, nor was there any evidence presented to establish its authenticity by affidavit. Further, the incident report, and the alleged corresponding witness statements, did not meet the admissibility requirements of Civ. R. 56, and therefore, were not entitled to consideration by the trial court for summary judgment purposes. Finally, summary judgment was properly granted. Because the victim could not identify or explain what caused her to slip and fall as...
Words: 3758 - Pages: 16
...LIPEZ, Circuit Judges. Damon M. Seligson, with whom Dinicola, Seligson & Upton, LLP was on brief, for appellant, cross-appellee. Christopher R. Largay, with whom Largay Law Offices, P.A. was on brief, for appellees, cross-appellants. After Michael Thompson purchased a multimillion-dollar oceanfront property in Bar Harbor, Maine from Nancy Cloud and Michael Miles, he discovered a number of problems with the property that required significant expenditures to repair. He brought this suit to recover damages for those repairs, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.1 The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Maine's implied warranty of habitability did not apply under the circumstances of this case, and that defendants had no duty of disclosure. The district court also entered judgment on the record for the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees. Plaintiff now appeals and defendants cross-appeal. We affirm the district court's decisions on all counts, albeit employing slightly different reasoning. I. In October 2008, appellant Thompson purchased a home in Bar Harbor (called “Seascape”) from appellees Miles and Cloud for $2.9 million. Miles and Cloud originally purchased the land for a home in 2000 and subsequently had Seascape constructed there. The pair lived at Seascape during the summer seasons between 2002 and 2004, and then listed the property for sale. While the property was listed...
Words: 4725 - Pages: 19
...1. What must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgement? (3 points) In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, a movant has the burden to demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that it appears from the evidence, when viewed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. 2. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY Supreme Court 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The plaintiff’s child was burned by coffee received at a restaurant, the coffee was placed in a holder that spilled causing a burn on the foot of one of the children. Nadel was driving his kids to school. His son Christopher was in the front seat next to him; Nadel's mother, Evelyn, was a passenger on the other side. They stopped at Burger King (BK) and received two cups of coffee fitted with lids and placed in a cardboard drink container, which was handed to Evelyn. Somehow, as Nadel drove away, the coffee got spilled on Christopher, who suffered second degree burns on his right foot. Nadel sued for breach of a warranty of merchantability, breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular...
Words: 512 - Pages: 3
...Courtroom Observation An Assignment Submitted by Sara Cotleur Liberty University Online Class Business 301-D04, Section 201320, Spring 2013 Deborah White vs. John Daniels and O’Malley’s Tavern Introduction The case in question is case number 82A04-8876-CV-285, between Deborah White as the plaintiff and John Daniels and O'Malley's Tavern as defendants before a mock U.S. District Court, in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiff’s attorneys are Amanda Babbit and Jackson Walsh while those of the defendants are Benjamin Walton and Jordan Van Meter. Mr. and Mrs. White went to O'Malley's Tavern on the Saturday, July 28, 2007, a tavern in Gary, Indiana. Edward Hard, a former fiancé of Mrs. White was also patronizing the same tavern and on seeing the two, he approached them to convey his congratulations on their recent marriage and then went back to his seat and resumed his drinks. The first defendant, Mr. Daniels, was the only licensed bartender working at O'Malley's Tavern. Mrs. White and Mr. Daniels confirmed Mr. Hard consumed four to six shots in about twenty-eight minutes after the arrival of the Whites. Thus Mr. Daniels had constructive knowledge of Mr. Hard’s intoxication. On consuming his last alcoholic drink he tried to leave and in the process tripped on a cue stick as he stood up but picked himself up. Mr. Daniel did not notice this stumbling incident and thus was not aware of the intoxication level of Mr. Hard and could not be said to have...
Words: 1619 - Pages: 7
...United States Tax Cases (1913-1999), [97-2 USTC ¶50,905], U.S. District Court, Dist. Ore., Dennis R. Maze and Beatrice V. Maze, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant , Summary judgment: Genuine issues of material fact: Capital gains and losses: Small business stock:, (Oct. 10, 1997), (Oct. 10, 1997) [97-2 USTC ¶50,905] Dennis R. Maze and Beatrice V. Maze, husband and wife, Plaintiffs v. United States of America, Defendant U.S. District Court, Dist. Ore., Civ. 96-1000-JE, 10/10/97 [Code Secs. 1244 and 7402 ] Summary judgment: Genuine issues of material fact: Capital gains and losses: Small business stock: Evidence.--The government was denied summary judgment on the issue of an individual’s entitlement to a deduction against ordinary income for a loss on the worthlessness of small business stock because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the stock’s qualification as Code Sec. 1244 stock. The government contended that the taxpayer would not be able to substantiate the three requirements for obtaining tax benefits under Code Sec. 1244 . However, with respect to the “small business” requirement, the record supported an inference that the aggregate funds of the corporation that issued thestock did not exceed $1 million on the issue date. With respect to the requirement that qualifying stock be issued for money or other property, the taxpayer produced enough evidence to raise a question of fact as to whether he gave the corporation money...
Words: 3548 - Pages: 15
...dispatcher. In the course of the high-speed chase, the teenagers collided with a cement wall and were injured. The pursuing patron left the crash scene area and was never identified. Bosse sued the restaurant owner, Brinker Restaurant Corp. doing business as Chili's Grill and Bar, for damages related to the crash. Bosse argued that the actions of the parties resulted in the Chili's patron being converted to an agent of Chili's, that he conducted his chase as an agent of the restaurant, and that the restaurant should be liable for the consequences of his negligent or reckless pursuit. Brinker filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of fact existed regarding the lack of an agency relationship through express acts or implication. Page 309 SYNOPSIS OF DECISION AND OPINION The Massachusetts Superior Court granted Brinker's motion for a summary judgment. The court held...
Words: 382 - Pages: 2