Mathew Kohr vs Starbucks - Assignment Example

Mathew Kohr vs Starbucks Introduction In the year 2012, a jury made the ruling that Starbucks was not responsible for any damages, after a cop made claims that he suffered severe third-degree burns when a free cup of coffee spilled on his lap. Lieutenant Matthew Kohr, who worked in North Carolina with Raleigh Police Department, sought damages amounting to $750,000 from the company when freebie spilled in his lap. However, the jury decided that Starbucks did not owe him anything; a decision both parties had to agree though was unanimous. Kohr explained that the lid of the coffee came off and then the cup collapsed after a drink was served to him, leaving him with blisters and burns in his lap. Mrs. Kohr, his wife, insisted that the sustained injuries were very severe and ruined their sexual life. The figure that amounted between $50,000 and $750,000 that the Kohrs were demanding was inclusive of the legal fees, medical costs, and damages (ABC News, 2012). Before the jury, Starbucks responded by arguing that since the cup of coffee was offered for free, Mr. Kohr is not covered by similar protections as that of a paying customer. Nevertheless, WRAL reported that the argument of Kohr was due to the fact that the freebie is only offered to uniformed officers, which make up an agreement between the company and him. Again, during the trial, Kohr confessed that he had to drive home so that he could take a photograph of the injury before seeking medical care later. He went home so that his wife could take photographs of the burns he had sustained on his inner thigh. The lawyer who represented Starbucks, Tricia Derr insisted that Kohr failed to visit a care center urgently till more than two hours passed. Originally, the Kohrs mentioned two baristas in the case, including the International Paper, who is the manufacturers of the cups, before directing the suit solely at Starbucks (ABC News, 2012). The spokesman for Starbucks mentioned that the company serves four billion coffees annually in the paper cups, and only fifty-nine of them had collapsed. Part One Though Kohr and his wife did not comment concerning the decision, lawyer Daniel Johnson said that the decision disappointed them very much. On the other hand, Starbucks mentioned that the decision made by the jury was pleasing, adding that it had a belief that the workers didn’t do anything wrong. Part Two In any civil actions that take place in the federal court, either of the parties may make the pre-trial motion for summary judgment. In order to succeed in the motion for summary judgment, the party involved must show that he is readily entitled to judgment in the context of the law, and that there does not exist any material issues of fact that are disputed (Cookie 2013). When making considerations for motions of the summary judgment, the judges consider all the evidence in the light of most favorable one for the opponent of the movant. As used here, the term ‘material issues of fact’ is used to refer to any of the fact that is capable of allowing a finder of the fact to make a decision against the movant. If the movant succeeds in gaining the motion, no trial takes place since the judge will enter judgment immediately for the movant. However, the judges may issue a partial summary judgment. For instance, a judge may decide on some factual issues, leaving others behind for trial. The judge may alternately grant the summary judgment concerning the liability, but yet hold a trial so as to determine damages. If the court decides to consider a motion for summary judgment, all the parties involved may have to submit affidavits and any other supporting evidence. The Supreme Court, in 477 U.S. 317 (1986) Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, held that if one of the parties advances his or her factual support for the claims, and the second party chooses to rest on pleadings, the court may end up granting its summary judgment against the second party (Schrage, 2013). In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule fifty-six governs the motions for summary judgment. The pre-trial motions are similar in many states. The defendants, in order to succeed on the summary judgment motion, must exhibit that there does not exist any genuine issue regarding the material fact, and the movant is granted the right of judgment by the law. Part Three In stating the facts of this case, a child was burnt. This was not part of the facts of the case since it only involves Mathew Kohr and the injuries he had from the burn. The court was unable to determine whether the coffee that was served to him was at a temperature that was too high. The only fact that was proven was that the cups were sleeveless and were not suitable for serving hot coffee (Dam, 2013). There was no any evident breach of warranty, as the attorneys mentioned in the court. Before the case could proceed, the court was unable to determine the price of the cup of coffee that caused the injuries to Mr. Kohr. Since it was offered for free where Mr. Kohr never paid anything, the attorneys for Starbucks argued that it was not a subject of similar warranty that was implied on a purchasing customer. On another note, there was no adequate warning about the product. The coffee cup did not have any warning regarding the temperature of the product where Mr. Kohr would have read and followed the instructions. If the cup could have adequate warning about the product, Mr. Kohr would not have even sought legal assistance to claim for damages. In the case, the attorneys had said that Matthew Kohr was entitled to a compensation for blisters, burns, and the emotional damage that resulted from spilled hot coffee on his lap. As Kohr said in the lawsuit, the lid simply popped off the cup of coffee that he ordered at Raleigh Starbucks, and then the cup collapsed (Horsey, & Rackley, 2013). He further claimed that the incident led to such intense stress that it triggered his Crohn’s disease, which led to a surgery for the removal of part of his intestine. The attorney who represented Starbucks, in her opening statement, argued that the event of Kohr sustaining burns was due to his negligence and that his pre-existing condition was responsible for the problems he underwent. Therefore, according to the attorney, there was negligence on the part of Kohr as far as emotional damage is concerned. Part four According to the ruling of the case of Matthew vs. Starbucks, this was a case of negligence. It is very clear that the case does not involve any emotional distress since the pre-existing condition of Mr. Kohr was not as a result of the coffee burn though the burn triggered its severity (Deakin, Johnston, & Markesinis, 2013). However, the court approved the tort of negligence. The negligence is observed where Mr. Kohr gets the free cup of coffee that is usually given to the cops in uniform. When the lid of the cup popped off, he claimed that the coffee cup collapses and therefore coffee splashes on his lap and his legs in the police-issue uniform. This case serves as a landmark for the people who file lawsuits of a similar type. The ruling of the court was a lesson to other negligent people who could in turn be involved in other lawsuits with other companies. If the court could have ruled that Starbucks was responsible for the burns and blisters that Mr. Kohr sustained from the spilled coffee, the customers would then become more negligent and keep filing lawsuits against Starbucks (Arvind & Steele, 2013). The jury that helped in the decision of this case was well informed on the law of torts where if it is as a result of negligence, then no damage should be compensated. The case of negligence was on the part of Kohr since Starbucks served their coffee drink the way it has been served and did all that it was required to do for its part. This implies that the condition of the coffee was good. In the attempt to join the dots between the relationships that exist between the causes of what Starbucks did or did not do and its outcome, one should be able to understand that they already met their burden. Mr. and Mrs. Kohr were, therefore, wrong in suing Starbucks and that they were liable for all the outcomes. References Arvind, T. T., & Steele, J. (2013). Tort law and the legislature: Common law, statute and the dynamics of legal change. Cooke, J. (2013). Law of tort. Harlow, England : Pearson. Deakin, S. F., Johnston, A. C., & Markesinis, B. (2013). Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford : Clarendon Press Russo, C. J., & Education Law Association (U.S.). (2013). The yearbook of education law 2013. Dayton, OH: Education Law Assn. Horsey, K., & Rackley, E. (2013). Tort law. Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press Schrage, E. J. H. (2013). Negligence: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Torts. Duncker & Humblot. Dam, C. C. (2013). European tort law. Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press Read More