homework 3

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.

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

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

* Motions to Dismiss - These are the defense's response or answers to the plaintiffs complaint. The responses are typically filed as motions and are intended to dismiss the claims expressed in the complaint.

No one remembers serving the plaintiff on the morning of the alleged incident. The Ishpeming Restaurant has two creamer machines. It appears that the cream dispenser, which is described as a model skmcd1p Silver King Refrigeration Unit was the cream dispenser, which was utilized on the date of the incident. The alleged incident occurred at approximately 7:30 am on April 28, 2014. The plaintiff allegedly ordered a cup of coffee with cream at the

| | |a mistrial is granted. | | | | | |b. | | |a summary judgment is granted. | | | | | |c.

A motion for summary judgement is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P. In doing this, courts test the “sufficiency” of the evidence “to determine if any real [factual] issue exists.” Garrigan v. Hinton Beef & Provision Co., 425 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Ala.1983). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no material issue of fact exists and summary judgement is appropriate. Chiniche v. Smith, 374 So.2d 872 (Ala.1979). The burden of proof shifts to the nonmoving party to show that there is an issue of material fact. Id. The judge must determine if an issue of material fact exists but must not decide any issues of fact. Shades Ridge Holding Co. v. Cobbs, Allen, & Hall Mortgage Co., 390 So.2d 601, 603 (Ala. 1980). The motion should be granted only when the opposing party can create any material issue of fact. Id.

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

In this essay, I will discuss the 1994 Stella Liebeck vs McDonald’s Restaurant 's tort lawsuit, where the plaintiff was severely burned after wasting coffee purchased from the drive-through window of the restaurant, into her lap. I will explore the basis of her claim against McDonald 's and identify if the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Additionally, I will examine why Ms. Liebeck 's lawyers believed that McDonald 's was liable to Ms. Liebeck. Likewise, I will reveal whether or not I think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might quickly give the consumer third-degree burns. Finally, I will disclose how the jury decides the case and why I think the jury decided the case this way.

In contractual law and ethical principles at all material times, vendors or manufacturers are assumed to adhere to the minimal applicable standard of care and engaged in reasonable conduct to extend to their consumers. It is expected that a 79 old should be in a better position to make a right decision. It is possible that was not the first time she had bought the coffee. She ought to know. A contractual law is intended to protect the consumer from defective products regarding quality and quantity. If the coffee was within the of 135-degree Celsius the expected, however, from the case coffee was served at 185 degree Celsius which is deemed hot enough to cause third-degree burns, this is was killer and made MacDonald liable for the damages.

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.

Hot coffee. Third degree burns. Lawsuits. Who 's to blame? Seventy-nine years old, Stella Liebeck purchased hot coffee at McDonald 's, extremely “hot” coffee, at a temperature well above the expected level brewed at home, on account of a quality assertion that the temperature was best maintained between 180o and 190o. Burning herself extensively, she sued the company, alleging the coffee was too hot, fated to harm someone. The argument presented by McDonald 's was that customers were only purchasing the coffee to drink later when they arrived at home or office, thereby, seeing a decrease in temperature to a more agreeable heat level when finally consumed. Nonetheless, not all customers delay their coffee consumption;

She knew what hot coffee was, she chose to purchase the coffee, she decided to open the cup on her lap, and she spilled the coffee, causing the burns. So many decisions that led to the burn, all from Stella’s actions. Any implied contracts with McDonalds would have been, was there coffee in the cup, and was it hot? Since that is the implicit contract, Stella wanted and bought hot coffee, I cannot see how the provider was to blame for delivering the requested