Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Jack (P) bought a cup of coffee from the mini-mart at a Mobil station. Jack asked Angelina (P), his wife, to remove the plastic lid while he drove. Angelina decided to pour some of the coffee into a smaller cup, and the coffee flooded her lap. She suffered second and third-degree burns and scars. She believes that the Styrofoam cup collapsed, either because it was poorly made or because inordinately hot coffee weakened its structure. Ps' claims against the producers of the cup and lid have been settled. D manufactured the coffee maker. Ps claim that the temperatures at which it brews and serves coffee--195 degrees F during the brewing cycle and 179 degrees F as the 'holding' temperature of a carafe on its hotplate--are excessive, and its design therefore defective. Ps sued D. Ps claim that D failed to warn consumers about the severity of burns that hot coffee can produce; and (ii) that any coffee served at more than 140 degrees F is unfit for human consumption and is a defective product as spills are foreseeable along with severe burns. The court entered summary judgment for D. Ps had conceded that 'hotness' was one of the elements they value in coffee and that they sought out hot coffee, knew it could burn, and took precautions as a result. The court ruled that this knowledge and concession foreclosed the possibility of recovery. Ps appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co