Why I'm glad I live in Nevada. "(the court) said there were no 'genuine issues of material fact.' "
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-crime/2000/jul/11/510491397.html
Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary
By Cy Ryan
<cy@lasvegassun.com>
SUN CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- Spilling a cup of hot coffee on one's self may cause injury, but the Nevada Supreme Court isn't going to require restaurants to post labels on coffee containers about the potential danger.
The court has dismissed the appeal of Lane Holmes, who sued the Turtle Stop at 2885 S. Nellis Blvd. in Las Vegas. Holmes had claimed a cup failed and caused him to suffer leg burns from dripping hot coffee.
The high court upheld the decision of District Judge Gene Porter who ruled, "The danger is open and obvious."
The case is reminiscent of the $2.9 million judgment awarded 81-year-old Stella Liebeck for the third-degree burns she suffered when she spilled coffee on her lap. The steaming beverage was purchased at a McDonald's restaurant in New Mexico and spilled when she tried to remove the cap from a cup. The judgment was reduced to $480,000 and an out-of-court settlement was reached.
In the Nevada case, Holmes purchased a cup of coffee to go in August 1995, and while he was getting into his car, the coffee seeped out of the container onto his fingers, which were burned, and then on to his leg.
Porter granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of the Turtle Stop, H&O Foods, which supplied the brewing equipment to the restaurant, and the Wilbur Curtis Co., which manufactured the equipment and the cups.
The Supreme Court, in a one-page order issued Friday, said Porter "did not err in granting summary judgment." It said there were no "genuine issues of material fact."
Holmes, through his lawyer Algimantas Bruzas, suggested there was a duty to post the warning.
Bruzas, in his brief to the Supreme Court, said there was a "failure to produce a warning on a product and Mr. Holmes was unaware that the coffee he purchased would cause a second-degree burn if it came in contact with his skin."
The hazard of suffering a burn "was not obvious," Bruzas said.
"Even though plaintiff testified the coffee was hot and he saw steam, it doesn't mean he was aware of or warned that he could suffer second-degree burns," he said.
Porter, in his decision, suggested that if warnings were posted on coffee cups, they might be required on knives and other utensils.
All contents © 1996 - 2000 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-crime/2000/jul/11/510491397.html
Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary
By Cy Ryan
<cy@lasvegassun.com>
SUN CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- Spilling a cup of hot coffee on one's self may cause injury, but the Nevada Supreme Court isn't going to require restaurants to post labels on coffee containers about the potential danger.
The court has dismissed the appeal of Lane Holmes, who sued the Turtle Stop at 2885 S. Nellis Blvd. in Las Vegas. Holmes had claimed a cup failed and caused him to suffer leg burns from dripping hot coffee.
The high court upheld the decision of District Judge Gene Porter who ruled, "The danger is open and obvious."
The case is reminiscent of the $2.9 million judgment awarded 81-year-old Stella Liebeck for the third-degree burns she suffered when she spilled coffee on her lap. The steaming beverage was purchased at a McDonald's restaurant in New Mexico and spilled when she tried to remove the cap from a cup. The judgment was reduced to $480,000 and an out-of-court settlement was reached.
In the Nevada case, Holmes purchased a cup of coffee to go in August 1995, and while he was getting into his car, the coffee seeped out of the container onto his fingers, which were burned, and then on to his leg.
Porter granted a pre-trial summary judgment in favor of the Turtle Stop, H&O Foods, which supplied the brewing equipment to the restaurant, and the Wilbur Curtis Co., which manufactured the equipment and the cups.
The Supreme Court, in a one-page order issued Friday, said Porter "did not err in granting summary judgment." It said there were no "genuine issues of material fact."
Holmes, through his lawyer Algimantas Bruzas, suggested there was a duty to post the warning.
Bruzas, in his brief to the Supreme Court, said there was a "failure to produce a warning on a product and Mr. Holmes was unaware that the coffee he purchased would cause a second-degree burn if it came in contact with his skin."
The hazard of suffering a burn "was not obvious," Bruzas said.
"Even though plaintiff testified the coffee was hot and he saw steam, it doesn't mean he was aware of or warned that he could suffer second-degree burns," he said.
Porter, in his decision, suggested that if warnings were posted on coffee cups, they might be required on knives and other utensils.
All contents © 1996 - 2000 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
