Burger King Case

CHRISTOPHER NADEL, by and through his next friend, BRENDA NADEL, his natural mother, EVELYN NADEL, and PAUL NADEL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION and EMIL, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL No. C-960489

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY

119 Ohio App. 3d 578; 695 N.E.2d 1185; 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 2144

May 21, 1997, Date of Judgment Entry On Appeal

May 21, 1997, Filed

NOTICE:   [***1]  THESE ARE NOT OFFICIAL HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI AND ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. PLEASE REVIEW THE CASE IN FULL.

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected August 27, 1998.

PRIOR HISTORY: Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. TRIAL NO. A-9502757.

DISPOSITION: Judgment Appealed From is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a child and his mother, grandmother, and father, challenged a judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) which granted summary judgment to defendants, a restaurant franchisor and franchisee, in plaintiff's action in breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence for injuries plaintiff child received when a cup of defendants' coffee spilled in plaintiffs' vehicle. |

OVERVIEW: 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...