assignment/ case readings attached

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a child and his mother, grandmother, and father, challenged a judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) which granted summary judgment to defendants, a restaurant franchisor and franchisee, in plaintiff's action in breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence for injuries plaintiff child received when a cup of defendants' coffee spilled in plaintiffs' vehicle.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff child was burned by spilled restaurant coffee. Plaintiffs, the child and his mother, grandmother, and father, filed an action in breach of warranty, products liability, and negligence against defendants, the restaurant franchisor and franchisee. The trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The spilled coffee was not so unforeseeable as to constitute an intervening cause. Summary judgment was proper for the breach of warranty claims because they were pre-empted by the Ohio Products Liability Law. Summary judgment was wrongly granted on the products liability and related punitive damage claims. Issues of fact remained as to whether the coffee was defective due to the heat at which it was served and whether an adequate warning existed. Because the alleged failure to warn involved a product, not premises, summary judgment was properly granted as to premises liability. Plaintiffs' claims of emotional damage were inadequate to support their claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The action was remanded for further proceedings.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants, a restaurant franchisor and a franchisee, as to claims by plaintiffs, a child and his mother, grandmother, and father, of breach of warranty, premises liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Summary judgment was reversed as to the products liability and punitive damage claims because of fact issues as to whether the coffee that burned plaintiff child was defective.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant personal injury victim filed suit against appellee store alleging that it was negligent in its cleaning of a coffee spill, upon which she slipped and fell. The store filed a motion for summary judgment. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio) granted summary judgment for the store. The victim appealed.

OVERVIEW: The victim argued that the trial court erred by failing to consider the incident report and corresponding witness statements. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by disregarding the document due to its lack of authenticity. There was no indication that the document, purported to be an employee witness statement, was sworn or certified, nor was there any evidence presented to establish its authenticity by affidavit. Further, the incident report, and the alleged corresponding witness statements, did not meet the admissibility requirements of Civ. R. 56 , and therefore, were not entitled to consideration by the trial court for summary judgment purposes. Finally, summary judgment was properly granted. Because the victim could not identify or explain what caused her to slip and fall as she approached the store checkout counter, she failed to present any evidence to survive summary judgment on the causation element of negligence. The store manager’s testimony, which indicated that there was "some dampness" on the floor that, in his opinion, could have caused the victim to slip and fall, was nothing more than mere speculation.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.