Nadel vs Burger King
Go to the Nadel v. Burger King case in Doc Sharing. Read the case and answer these questions
in a Word document. Submit to the dropbox for Week 3.
1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (10 points)
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County
2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary
judgment? (10 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. Civ.R. 56(C); Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 4 O.O.3d 466, 471-472, 364 N.E.2d 267, 274.”
3. Briefly state the facts of this case. (10 points)
Paul Nadel, son and driver, and Evelyn Nadel, Paul’s mother and sitting in the passenger seat in the front, bought breakfast at a Burger King drive-through that included hot coffee. The food and coffee was passed to Paul from the server at Burger King and Paul passed the food and coffee to Evelyn. Evelyn opened the flap on the coffee lid and upon trying to drink the coffee, found the coffee was too hot to drink and replaced the tab on the lid and either placed the coffee carrier somewhere or was placing it somewhere when Paul pulled out of the Burger King parking lot and turned onto the street to drive his kids to school. Christopher, Paul’s son that was sitting between his father and his grandmother in the front seat, screamed out that his foot was burned. It was found that hot coffee had spilled from one or both coffee cups onto his foot and was burning his foot.
4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress?...