Week 3 Assignment
1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) The court decided for the defendants to prevail because premises liability and negligent infliction of emotion. 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Establish grounds for there enough cause for a motion.
3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The facts of the case found in LexisNexis is: a child was burnt, not determined if the coffee was served scolding hot or not, no breach of warranty, and no negligence of emotional damage. 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) The court did approve punitive damages but Burger King had nothing to do with the child being burnt by the coffee. 5. According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points) Because it wasn’t stated on the cup, Hot.
6. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) I do not agree that just because someone accidentally poured coffee(because unless you say you want it cold it comes hot) on their child. It is only because of this accident that caused the customers to sue Burger King. A. the name and citation of the case (5 points); State ex rel. Thomas J. Coyne, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. The American Tobacco Company Inc., et al., Defendants. B. the name of the court which decided the case (3 points); US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio(Eastern Division). C. the year of the decision (2 points); March 17, 1999.
D. the facts of the case (5 points); There were no warning signs on tobacco products, Ohio supplier was liable for warn when he should have known the dangers of the product, and defendants were charged with breach of negligence for not displaying warning...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document