Nadal vs Bk

. What court decided the case in the assignment?

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?

The party must prove that there are no material facts to still be argued, that they are entitled to the summary judgment as a matter of law, and that a reasonable person could only come to one conclusion in the case and that conclusion would be against the opposing party.

3. Briefly state the facts of this case.

Mr. Nadel in the process of taking his four children to school on morning in December 1993 decided to stop at Burger King and order breakfast for the children and himself. Upon receiving his order of several sandwiches and drinks including two hot drinks he passed them to his son and then to his daughter. The daughter tasted the hot beverage and determined it was to hot to consume and placed it down either near the son’s feet or on the dashboard. When Mr. Nadel left the parking lot and made a left turn the hot beverages spilled on to Christopher and into his sock.

4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress?

Mr. Nadel and his daughter claimed emotional distress however the court determined that it doid not reach the level of severe distress. The daughter claimed that she was worried for her brother, which passed after the incident. Mr. Nadel claimed emotional distress that because he was in therapy because of his divorce and the incident came up. The court determined that the emotional distress that Mr. Nadel was experiencing was not caused by the incident, thus denying that claim.

5. What tort did the court approve?

The court stated that “implied warranties set forth by the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code,” which allows for the awarding of damages based upon a product that is defective in the sense of an implied warranty. The court recognized that the Nadel’s did have the burn caused...