Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc
"Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc." is a notable 1997 court case from Ohio centered around a personal injury claim involving hot coffee. The plaintiff, Paul Nadel, sought damages after his son Christopher sustained second-degree burns from spilled coffee during a drive-thru purchase at Burger King. The lawsuit alleged that the restaurant served coffee at an excessively high temperature and failed to adequately warn customers of the associated risks. Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of Burger King, attributing responsibility for the incident to the plaintiffs. However, the case was appealed, resulting in a ruling that allowed for a jury to assess whether the temperature of the coffee exceeded customer expectations and if the coffee lacked proper warnings. Ultimately, while the appeals court opened avenues for jury consideration, punitive damages were not awarded to the plaintiffs. This case is part of a broader conversation about tort law and personal injury litigation in the United States, raising questions about product safety, consumer responsibility, and the nature of legal claims in the context of perceived negligence.
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc.
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. is a 1997 court case in the state of Ohio in which the plaintiff attempted to seek damages from the fast-food restaurant Burger King after the plaintiff's son was injured in an accident involving hot coffee. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that Burger King was at fault for serving coffee at an excessively high temperature and failed to properly warn customers about its potential dangers. When the case eventually reached the state court of appeals, the court ruled it had adequate legal grounds for it to be tried in front of a jury, however, the court did not award punitive damages to the plaintiff.
Legal Context
Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. is an example of a tort law case. A tort is an act or omission that results in the injury of another. Based on that definition, tort lawis a legal approach to righting wrongs caused by torts. In most cases, tort lawsuits involve physical or emotional injury sustained because of some sort of negligence. Many critics typically point out that a large number of these cases are little more than frivolous attempts to cash in on a perceived wrong that may not constitute a legitimate legal claim.
One of the earliest and most high-profile modern tort cases—and one that had an obvious bearing on Nadel v. Burger King—was Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. In February 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck purchased a coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru, removed the lid, and placed the beverage between her legs to add cream and sugar. She accidentally spilled the coffee and subsequently suffered severe burns to her pelvic region. Liebeck later sued McDonald's for serving coffee that was too hot and for failing to warn customers about its dangers. When the case went before a jury, Liebeck was initially awarded $2.7 million in damages, though she eventually settled for less. The Liebeck case became a media sensation and set the stage for similar cases.
Facts of the Case
In December 1993, Paul Nadel and his mother Evelyn were taking his three children to school when they decided to stop at an Ohio Burger King drive-thru on the way. Paul's son, Christopher, was seated in the front of the car between Paul and Evelyn, while Paul's two daughters were seated in the rear. As part of their order, the Nadels purchased two cups of coffee. Those coffees were placed by a Burger King employee in the opposite diagonal corners of a cardboard carrying container designed to hold four cups. Paul accepted the coffees from the employee and passed them to Christopher, who then passed them to Evelyn. After tasting one of the coffees and determining it was too hot to drink immediately, Evelyn placed the beverages—still in the carrying container—on the floor of the vehicle.
After finalizing his transaction, Paul left the drive-thru and proceeded to the Burger King property's exit. When Paul attempted to negotiate a left-hand turn out of the property and onto the street, one or both of the coffees spilled, burning Christopher's right foot. Upon receiving treatment at a nearby medical facility, Christopher was found to have suffered second-degree burns to the affected appendage.
Summary of the Trials and Decision
In the wake of the accident, the Nadels filed a lawsuit against Burger King Corporation and the local franchisee (Emil). The Nadels alleged that both parties should be held liable because they served coffee that was unreasonably hot and legally defective and because they failed to properly warn customers about the risks of handling a potentially dangerous product. In response, Burger King and the franchisee sought a summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs knew the coffee was hot, knew it could cause injury if spilled, and were responsible for the spill in the first place.
When Nadel v. Burger King was first heard in a trial court, the court ruled in favor of the defendants on the grounds that Christopher's injuries were the result of superseding, intervening causes for which the Nadels were primarily responsible. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Nadels filed an appeal that eventually allowed the case to be held before the Court of Appeals of Ohio. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, but it reversed the original decision in two key areas and called for further proceedings in these areas. First, the appeals court ruled that a jury should decide whether the coffee was hotter than the plaintiffs would have expected and whether the risks of purchasing and consuming such hot coffee outweighed its benefits. Second, the court also ruled that a jury should decide whether the coffee was legally defective because it did not include a warning label. The Nadels did not receive any punitive damages in the case.
Significance
Cases like Nadel v. Burger King and Liebeck v. McDonald's helped to set a precedent that popularized tort litigation and led to similar lawsuits. While many of these were based on legitimate claims, others were found to be frivolous. An example includes the case of an Oregon man who attempted in 2006 to sue former NBA player Michael Jordan and footwear giant Nike for more than $800 million simply because he grew frustrated with repeatedly being mistaken for the retired basketball star. Because of cases such as these, critics have called for tort reform.
Bibliography
"Nadel v. Burger King Corporation." FindLaw. Thomson Reuters. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/oh-court-of-appeals/1220610.html
Quirk, Paul J., and William Cunion. "Torts and Negligence." Governing America: Major Decisions of Federal, State, and Local Governments from 1789 to the Present. Vol. 3. New York: Facts on File, 2011. 908–16. Print.
Rami, Zachary. "Courts Split as to Whether Consumers Injured by Hot Coffee Can Seek Recovery." Loyola Consumer Law Review. Loyola University Chicago School of Law. 1999. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1405&context=lclr
"Real Injuries or Frivolous Lawsuits? You Make the Call!" ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures. 13 May 2009. Web. 5 Feb. 2015. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/LegalCenter/story?id=7566904&page=1&singlePage=true