Court Of Appeals Case Summary

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

Jane Doe served the hot tea in a paper “hot cup”, which was placed in another slightly shorter and wider clear plastic cup. Jane Doe wedged the condiments (sugar and creamer) between the two cups. Jane Doe did not offer any assistance to the Plaintiff, and the other passengers were occupied with their own beverages, unable to assist the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff spilt extremely hot water in her groin and buttocks area as a result of this situation.

Judge Simons dissented on the case stating he felt consumer expectation had no place in personal injury litigation. His reasoning seemed to place absolute burden on a manufacturer in all cases. His reasoning’s stated “ordinary uses” and “intended and reasonably foreseeable” implied warranties. If this were the case it would be hard to determine the definition of “defective” and “reasonable” to provide a decision in other cases. Any other decisions that would arise in similar cases would ultimately place the burden on the manufacturer to prove there was no defectiveness and the product could be used in any sort of circumstances.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Whether the conduct of counsel for the prosecution undermined the integrity of the trial so as to amount to injustice to the appellant.

3. Summarize the legal arguments raised by the (a) plaintiff and by the (b) defendant.

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- A woman who was scalded when her McDonald 's Corp. coffee spilled was awarded almost $2.9 million by a jury. Lawyers for Stella Liebeck, who incurred thirddegree burns in the1992 incident, contended that McDonald 's coffee was too hot. On Wednesday, a state district court jury imposed $2.7 million in punitive damages and $160,000 in compensatory damages. Defense attorney Tracy McGee has said the company will appeal. Ms. Liebeck 's medical bills totaled almost $10,000, according to one of her attorneys. Testimony indicated that McDonald 's coffee is served at between 180and 190 degrees, based on advice from a coffee consultant who has said the beverage tastes best at that temperature, Ken Wagner, one of Ms. Liebeck 's attorneys, said yesterday. The lawsuit contended that Ms. Liebeck 's coffee was between 165 and 170 degrees when it spilled. In contrast, the complaint said, coffee brewed at home is generally between 135 and 140 degrees.

The movie, “Hot Coffee”, is a documentary film that was created by Susan Saladoff in 2011 that analyzes the impact of the tort reform on the United States judicial system. The title and the basis of the film is derived from the Liebeck v. McDonald’s restaurants lawsuit where Liebeck had burned herself after spilling hot coffee purchased from McDonald’s into her lap. The film features four different suits that may involve the tort reform. This film included many comments from politicians and celebrities about the case. There were also several myths and misconceptions on how Liebeck had spilled the coffee and how severe the burns were to her. One of the myths was that many people thought she was driving when she spilled the coffee on herself and that she suffered only minor burns, while in truth she suffered severe burns and needed surgery. This case is portrayed in the film as being used and misused to describe in conjunction with tort reform efforts. The film explained how corporations have spent millions of dollars deforming tort cases in order to promote tort reform. So in the film “Hot Coffee” it uses the case, Liebeck v. McDonalds, as an example of large corporations trying to promote the tort reform, in which has many advantages and disadvantages to the United States judicial system.