Nadel v. Burger King Corp.
119 Ohio App.3d 578, 695 N.E.2d 1185 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio's Products Liability Law, an injury itself (such as second-degree burns from hot coffee) can create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a product is defective in design or lacks adequate warning, making summary judgment inappropriate, and a franchisor may be considered a 'manufacturer' if it dictates product specifications.
Facts:
- In early December 1993, Paul Nadel was driving his son, Christopher, and two daughters to school, with his mother, Evelyn Nadel, also in the car.
- The family ordered breakfast, including two cups of coffee, from the drive-through window of a Burger King restaurant owned by Emil, Inc. and operating under a franchise agreement with Burger King Corporation (BK).
- Emil's employee served the coffee to Paul, who passed it to Christopher, who handed it to Evelyn.
- Evelyn tasted the coffee, found it too hot to drink, and testified that the lid 'jiggled off' and burned her right leg.
- After Evelyn closed the lid, she either started to place the container of coffees on the floor or had already done so when Paul drove away, making a left turn.
- During the turn, one or both coffee cups tipped, spilling hot coffee onto Christopher's right foot, causing second-degree burns.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul and Evelyn Nadel, and Christopher Nadel (the Nadéis), filed a complaint raising several claims, including breach of warranty, products liability (design defect, failure to warn), negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress, against Emil, Inc. and Burger King Corporation (BK).
- Emil, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue of material fact existed.
- Burger King Corporation also moved for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that Evelyn’s and Paul’s actions were intervening, superseding causes.
- The trial court granted both summary judgment motions, concluding that Christopher’s injury was, as a matter of law, the result of intervening, superseding causes attributable to Paul and Evelyn.
- The Nadéis (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, with Emil, Inc. and Burger King Corporation as defendants-appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against the Nadel family on their claims of product liability (design defect, failure to warn) and punitive damages, given that Christopher Nadel sustained second-degree burns from spilled hot coffee, and are warranty and emotional distress claims preempted or unsupported by evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Painter, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the products liability claims for design defect and failure to warn, and on punitive damages, but not for warranty, premises-related negligence, or negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. First, the court found that a spilled drink at a fast-food establishment is not so unforeseeable as to constitute an intervening, superseding cause as a matter of law, therefore reversing the trial court's sole basis for granting summary judgment. Second, the court held that the Nadéis' warranty claims (breach of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose) were preempted by the Ohio Products Liability Law (R.C. 2307.72 and 2307.73) for personal injury claims arising from a product defect. Third, regarding the product liability claims, the court concluded that the fact that the coffee caused second-degree burns was sufficient to raise a factual issue on whether the coffee was unreasonably hot (design defect under R.C. 2307.75). The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the coffee was so exceedingly hot that serving it without a warning constituted a defect due to lack of warning (R.C. 2307.76), as it was not convinced that the danger of severe burns from spilled coffee was an 'open and obvious risk' or 'common knowledge' that could be judicially noticed. Furthermore, Burger King Corporation could be considered a 'manufacturer' under R.C. 2307.71(I) for summary judgment purposes, as Emil brewed and sold the coffee according to BK's specifications under the franchise agreement, indicating BK's potential control. Fourth, the court affirmed summary judgment on the negligent claim toward business invitees, stating that it more appropriately falls under products liability than premises liability. Fifth, summary judgment was proper for negligent infliction of emotional distress, as the Nadéis failed to provide sufficient evidence of 'serious emotional distress' (severe and debilitating) as required by precedent. Finally, summary judgment on punitive damages was premature because specific reasons for granting it, based on the record, were not cited, and an inquiry into statutory factors (R.C. 2307.801) was necessary.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Hildebrandt, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the design defect, failure to warn, and punitive damages claims. Judge Hildebrandt concurred with the majority on the issues of intervening cause and premises-related negligence but dissented on the product liability and punitive damages claims. The judge argued that merely suffering an injury (second-degree burns) is not sufficient to establish a product defect under Ohio's Products Liability Act (R.C. 2307.75), asserting that such a conclusion creates an 'absolute liability' for manufacturers, which is contrary to the principle that a product does not need to be accident-proof. Regarding the failure to warn claim, the dissenting judge contended that the fact that coffee is hot and can cause burns is an 'open and obvious risk' and a matter of 'common knowledge' under R.C. 2307.76(B), thus no warning was required. The judge distinguished between the 'risk' (the danger or potentiality for danger) and the 'severity of a specific injury,' stating that the latter does not make the former less obvious. Given this conclusion, the judge also believed that summary judgment on punitive damages should have been affirmed, as the underlying product liability claims should fail.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its interpretation of Ohio's Products Liability Law, particularly how it affects the burden of proof at the summary judgment stage. The majority's holding that an injury like second-degree burns can, by itself, raise a factual issue for a jury on design defect and failure to warn claims could make it more difficult for manufacturers to secure summary judgment in similar product liability cases. It also broadens the potential scope of 'manufacturer' to include franchisors who dictate product specifications, expanding potential liability. The ruling also firmly establishes the preemption of common law warranty claims by the Ohio Products Liability Law for personal injuries, streamlining claims into the statutory framework.
