Nadel Et Al. V. Burger King

In: Business and Management

Submitted By fprophet85
Words 565
Pages 3
Pick an administrative agency of either the federal or a state government. Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for that agency are located on the Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative Agency website.) Regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one proposed regulation change currently under consideration (if you find one that has already closed out but interests you, you can use that instead) and write the following regarding it: 1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation. Explain why this agency and your proposed regulation interests you (briefly). Will this proposed regulation affect you, or the business in which you are working? If so, how? Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your responses to these five questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either a separate Word document (.doc) or Adobe file (.pdf). This means you will submit two attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox: (a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and (b) a copy of the proposed regulation you used for this assignment. (10 points) 2. Describe the proposal/change. (10 points) 3. Write the public comment that you would submit to this proposal. If the proposed regulation deadline has already passed, write the comment you would have submitted. Explain briefly what you wish to accomplish with your comment. (10 points) 4. Provide the "deadline" by which the public comment must be made. (If the date has already passed, please provide when the deadline was). (5 points) a. Once you have submitted your comment, what will you be legally entitled to do later in the promulgation process (if you should choose to do so)? (See the textbook's discussion of the Administrative Procedure Act.) b. If the proposal passes, identify and explain the five legal theories…...

Similar Documents

Burger King

...gained experience in the restaurant business in the past. In 1954 the first Burger King was open to the public in Miami, Florida (www.burgerking.ca/en/1122/index.php). By developing the first Burger King, James McLamore and David Edgerton had given the community a comfortable environment to eat inside of the restaurant, because the restaurant was the first fast food business to offer people the option of dining in the restaurant or going to the drive thru(www.burgerking.ca). With McDonalds being the largest fast food chain in the world, Burger King rates as the second largest hamburger fast food restaurant in the world, with Wendy’s following right behind it (Armstrong/Kotler, 450). Burger King came to be the second largest hamburger fast food chain in the world with a total amount of sales at $7.9 billion in the year of 2003, falling behind McDonalds with their sales being $22.1 billion (Armstrong/Kotler, 450). Burger King’s most popular product, the Original Whopper Sandwich was introduced to the world in 1957. The Whopper became a huge success and is still a world known sandwich that has a perfect fire-grilled taste (www.burgerking.ca/en/1121/index.php). This tasty hamburger was created to satisfy their customer so that any one as customer can have their food their own way which relates to their slogan "Have it your way", created in 1974. They state that their vision is to "proudly serve the best burgers in the business, plus a variety of real authentic foods....all......

Words: 2570 - Pages: 11

Richard Wallace Grube Et Al. V. Bethlehem Area School District

...Abstract Richard Grube, an athletically inclined senior at Freedom High School in the Bethlehem Area School District, played football his freshman, sophomore, and junior years. Prior to the start of the football season in his senior year, the district claimed Richard was ineligible to play on the basis that Richard only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction against the school district claiming the district violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) According to the United States Department of Education (2011), Section 504 states that, “no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in…any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance”. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Richard Grube. Case and Law Review Richard Wallace Grube et al. v. Bethlehem Area School District Legal Research In 1982, Richard Grube, a senior at Freedom High School was declared ineligible to play football because he only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that, no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the......

Words: 1581 - Pages: 7

Nadel vs Burger King

...assignment, you will need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller Library, from the Student Resources area under Course Home. Go to Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name on that document, and answer the questions. 1. What must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgement? (3 points) The plaintiff must prove that • 1. the product was defective when sold; • 2. the defective condition rendered the product unreasonably dangerous; and • 3. the product was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. The defect is usually the most difficult part of the case for the plaintiff to establish. A product may be defective because of (1) some flaw or abnormality in its construction or marketing that led to its being more dangerous than it otherwise would have been, (2) a failure by the manufacturer or seller to adequately warn of a risk or hazard associated with the product, or (3) a design that is defective. ( Source : Kubasek) The Nadels could raise several claims, including (1) breach of a warranty of merchantability and breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, both based on the allegation that the coffee was too hot to consume, (2) products......

Words: 1556 - Pages: 7

Nadel V Burgerking

...need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller Library, from the Student Resources area under Course Home. Go to Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name on that document, and answer the questions. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) According to the case, why didn't the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points) Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) Now, in the library, click the “Shepardize” button in the top right of the LexisNexis page while on the case. This provides you with all of the cases which have used Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case as “precedent” since its publication. Out of the cases listed, pick one, click the link, read the case, and provide the following information: the name and citation of the case (5......

Words: 422 - Pages: 2

Case Study: Delia V. E.M.A. Et Al

...Case Study: Delia v. E.M.A. et al Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx University of Maryland University College HCAD 650 Fall 2012 October 5, 2013 Case Study: Delia v. E.M.A. et al This paper reviews a case study of a medical malpractice suit that resulted in a claim against the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services for their practice of recovering settlements paid for medical expenses. Legal controversies with medical impact rarely reach the United States Supreme Court because such cases must go through several levels of hearings and appeals before even being considered by the Supreme Court. Medical issues must involve interpretation of the US Constitution or federal law, and at least four of the nine justices must agree to accept a case. The Supreme Court reviews only a small percentage of the several thousand cases submitted each year. Consequently, most medical controversies at law take place in state courts. Subject United States Supreme Court Case No. 12-98. Albert A. Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. E.M.A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. Later the case was changed to: No. 12-98. Aldona Wos, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. E.M.A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. The purpose of the case was to resolve the conflict between the opinions of the 4th U. S. Court of Appeals in this case...

Words: 2010 - Pages: 9

Burger King

...For this assignment, you will need to access the LexisNexis database in the Keller Library, from the Student Resources area under Course Home. Go to Kubasek, Chapter 13, page 369, problem 13-16. Use LexisNexis in the Keller library and look up the Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case. Use the citation you find in your book to do the search. Read the case and answer these questions. Copy and paste this information into a Word document, include your name on that document, and answer the questions. 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) 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....

Words: 854 - Pages: 4

Toronto Marlboro Major Junior "A" Hockey Club Et Al. V. Tonelli Et Al.

...The standards adopted by the minority in the case of Toronto Marlboro Major Junior "A" Hockey Club et al. v. Tonelli et al. to “test” the minors contract were as follows: I ask whether a prudent and informed parent of a 17-year-old young man who wished to become a professional hockey player, having in mind the realities of the world around him, would approve of this contract. I believe he would. It is true that the contract in this case could have been more beneficial to the infant and the scale could have been tipped more in favour of the infant but that is of little import. It also may not be desirable that member teams of the O.H.A. Major Junior League should occupy such a preferred position as vehicles of entry to the ranks of professional hockey but that too is of little import. It was this specific contract that was available to the infant in this case. The choice was to accept it or go elsewhere and that fact must be given appropriate weight. I do not believe that it could be realistically said that it would have been in the best interest of Tonelli to go elsewhere. The dissent by Mr Justice Zuber; who felt the defendant had breached his contract, based his decision on this critical question; In September of 1974, was it in the beneficial interest of the 17- year-old John Tonelli to enter into this agreement with the Toronto Marlboros? Zuber came to the conclusion that this young man wished to be a professional hockey player and even though he had before him the......

Words: 691 - Pages: 3

Nadel V. Burger King

...summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) c. This is not a negligent infliction of emotional distress case because Burger King (1) did not burn the Nadels intentionally or recklessly. (2) Burger King’s conduct was not outrageous and the conduct......

Words: 332 - Pages: 2

Nadel Et Al V Burger King Corp

...Carmelita Cain MGMT 520 Week 3 Assignment Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Emil moved for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. BK also moved for summary judgment and pointed to evidence in the depositions that appellants knew the coffee was hot and that coffee was purchased and served as a hot beverage. It also contended under the circumstances that Evelyn's and Paul's actions were intervening, superseding causes precluding any actionable negligence on its part. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Christopher Nadel received second degree burns from coffee spilling on his right foot purchased at Burger King by his grandmother Evelyn Nadel. The Nadel’s brought suit against Burger King and franchise owner Emil, Inc, for product liability for a defectively designed product and for failure to warn of the dangers of handling a liquid served as hot as their coffee. The court granted both the Burger King owner and Burger King Corporation request for motion of summary of judgments. The Nadel’s appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on...

Words: 1465 - Pages: 6

Nadel V. Burger King

...summary judgment? (3 points) a. In the case of Nadel et at v. Burger King Corp. & Emil Inc., “the trial court granted the motions of both defendants for summary judgment”. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) b. The facts of this case are that Christopher Nadel suffered from second degree burns to his right foot after being burned by hot coffee ordered from a Burkger King drive-thru. Christopher was seated in middle front seat between his father, Paul and Grandmother, Evelyn. Evelyn received a burn to her right leg when tasting her coffee and it was too hot. Christopher’s second degree burns resulted when Evelyn was placing her coffee down and Paul pulled into the street. On behalf of Christopher, the Nadels sued the owner of Burger King for product liability and failure to display hot warning labels. The owner of Burger King and Burger King Corp. moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted. Burger King stated they were immune to product liability because they aren’t the manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the faulty cups. 4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) c. This is not a negligent infliction of emotional distress case because Burger King (1) did not burn the Nadels intentionally or recklessly. (2) Burger King’s conduct was not outrageous and the conduct......

Words: 332 - Pages: 2

Nadel Et Al., Appellants, V. Burger King Corporation

...Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. NADEL et al., Appellants, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION et al., Appellees. No. C-960489. -- May 21, 1997 Edward J. Felson and Stephen R. Felson, Cincinnati, for appellants. Jonathan P. Saxton, Cincinnati, for appellee Burger King Corporation. Droder & Miller Co., L.P.A., A. Dennis Miller and Kevin J. Ryan, Cincinnati, for appellee Emil, Inc. I. Facts On a morning in early December 1993, plaintiff-appellant Paul Nadel was driving his son, plaintiff-appellant Christopher, and two younger daughters, Ashley and Brittany, to school.1  Paul's mother, plaintiff-appellant Evelyn Nadel, was seated next to the passenger window.   Christopher was seated in the front seat between Evelyn and Paul, with one foot on the transmission hump and one foot on the passenger side of the hump.   Brittany and Ashley were in the back seat.   On the way, they ordered breakfast from the drive-through window of a Burger King restaurant owned and operated by defendant-appellee Emil, Inc. (“Emil”) under a franchise agreement with defendant-appellee Burger King Corporation (“BK”).   Paul's order included several breakfast sandwiches and drinks and two cups of coffee.   The cups of coffee were fitted with lids and served in a cardboard container designed to hold four cups, with the two cups placed on opposite diagonal corners.   Emil's employee served the coffee through the car window to Paul, who passed it to Christopher, who handed it to......

Words: 5512 - Pages: 23

Burger King

...Burger King Corporation Company Profile Reference Code: F8CC90C1-1A3C-499B-BB52-A2604879F62C Publication Date: Aug 2007 www.datamonitor.com Datamonitor Europe Charles House 108-110 Finchley Road London NW3 5JJ United Kingdom t: +44 20 7675 7000 f: +44 20 7675 7500 e: eurinfo@datamonitor.com Datamonitor Americas 245 Fifth Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10016 USA t: +1 212 686 7400 f: +1 212 686 2626 e: usinfo@datamonitor.com Datamonitor Germany Kastor & Pollux Platz der Einheit 1 60327 Frankfurt Deutschland t: +49 69 97503 119 f: +49 69 97503 320 e: deinfo@datamonitor.com Datamonitor Asia-Pacific Room 2413-18, 24/F Shui On Centre 6-8 Harbour Road Hong Kong t: +852 2520 1177 f: +852 2520 1165 e: hkinfo@datamonitor.com Datamonitor Japan Aoyama Palacio Tower 11F 3-6-7 Kita Aoyama Minato-ku Tokyo 107 0061 Japan t: +813 5778 7532 f: +813 5778 7537 e: jpinfo@datamonitor.com ABOUT DATAMONITOR Datamonitor plc is a premium business information company specializing in industry analysis. We help our clients, 5000 of the world's leading companies, to address complex strategic issues. Through our proprietary databases and wealth of expertise, we provide clients with unbiased expert analysis and in-depth forecasts for six industry sectors: Automotive, Consumer Markets, Energy, Financial Services, Healthcare and Technology. Datamonitor maintains its headquarters in London and has regional offices in New York, Frankfurt, Hong Kong and Japan. Datamonitor's premium reports are......

Words: 5719 - Pages: 23

Kelo Et Al. V. City of New London Et Al.

...I. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) III. FACTS: The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic...

Words: 1569 - Pages: 7

Burger King

...BURGER KING CORPORATION v HUNGRY JACK’S PTY LIMITED (S175/2002) Court appealed from: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court of Appeal) Date of Judgment: 20 November 2001 Date of grant of special leave: 19 April 2002 The appellant was the franchisor of the second largest food chain in the world. The respondent was the largest franchisee in Australia and for many years had been the sole franchisee. The respondent used its own name Hungry Jack’s for its franchised stores rather than the Burger King brand name. In 1990 after several years of disputes the parties entered into four agreements, which together with the individual franchise agreements in respect of each of the respondent’s stores, governed the contractual relationship of the parties, including the respondent’s development rights in Australia. Under the Development Agreement, the respondent had an unrestricted non exclusive right to develop throughout Australia and was required to develop a total of at least four restaurants per year in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. There were continuing disputes between the parties which developed and intensified from 1993 onwards. On 18 November 1996 the appellant served two Notices of Termination of the Development Agreement. On 26 November 1996 the respondent commenced proceedings against the appellant. The primary judge made various findings against the appellant including that the Notices of Termination were invalid......

Words: 513 - Pages: 3

Barbara J. O'Neil Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, V. Crane Co. Et Al., Defendants and Respondents

...Michael Dumalag Professor Sabia Law & Econ – ECON 496 24 April 2012 BARBARA J. O'NEIL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CRANE CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. S177401 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 53 Cal. 4th 335; 266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,765 January 12, 2012, Filed INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent plaintiff released from external insulation and internal gaskets and packing. During World War II, defendants sold parts to the United States Navy for use in the steam propulsion systems of warships. These Steam systems were extremely hot and highly pressurized, requiring insulation. Navy specifications made use of asbestos insulation required at the time and products that did not conform to the use were rejected. However no evidence was presented that asbestos was needed in order for the valves to function properly also the defendant did not manufacture the asbestos packing gaskets used in its valves. Once parts were received by the navy, they were integrated into other components such as boilers and piping with asbestos-containing flange......

Words: 1470 - Pages: 6