Christopher Nadel was in the car with his father, Paul, and his grandmother, Evelyn, when they pulled into Burger King for breakfast. Christopher was seated in the center of the front seat, between...

Christopher Nadel was in the car with his father, Paul, and his grandmother, Evelyn, when they pulled into Burger King for breakfast. Christopher was seated in the center of the front seat, between Paul and Evelyn; two of Christopher’s classmates were in the back seat. The group ordered several breakfast sandwiches at the drive-thru as well as two cups of coffee. Evelyn was burned on her right leg by the coffee when she tasted it to see how hot it was. As she was placing the coffee back in the carrier, Paul pulled out onto the street and Christopher began to scream that he was being burned. Either one or both cups of coffee had spilled onto Christopher’s foot and Christopher was subsequently treated for second-degree burns to his right foot. The Nadels, on behalf of Christopher, sued the owner of the particular Burger King franchise that they stopped at and Burger King Corporation itself, alleging, among other claims, 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. Both the owner of the Burger King and Burger King Corporation moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted both motions. Burger King Corporation argued that it was immune to the product liability claims because it was not a manufacturer, seller, or supplier of the coffee. The Nadels appealed. Do you think the court of appeals agreed that Burger King Corporation was immune to the product liability claims? Why or why not? Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc., 119 Ohio App. 3d 578, 695 N.E.2d 1185 (1997).