Burger King Corporation Case Briefing Paper

Review and analyze the attached court opinion and BRIEF the case. Following the format for “Case Briefing” after page 1008 (Appendix A1 – A2) [revised 27JAN2022] in your textbook.

NICHOLAS AND JODIANN IANNELLI, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS P/N/F OF
NICOLE, JEREMY & RENEE IANNELLI v. BURGER KING CORPORATION
No. 99-016
SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
145 N.H. 190; 761 A.2d 417; 2000 N.H. LEXIS 42
August 18, 2000, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [***1] Released for Publication November 30, 2000.
PRIOR HISTORY: Hillsborough-southern judicial district.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL: Jordan, Maynard & Parodi, PLLC, of Nashua (Steven L. Maynard on the
brief and orally), for the plaintiffs.
Backus, Meyer, Solomon, Rood & Branch, of Manchester (Robert A. Backus on the
brief and orally), for the defendant.
JUDGES: McHUGH, J. BROCK, C.J., and HORTON and BRODERICK, JJ., did not sit;
GROFF, J., superior court justice, specially assigned under RSA 490:3; was
recused and did not sit; GRAY, J., retired superior court justice, and McHUGH,
superior court justice, sat by special assignment pursuant to RSA 490:3; all who
sat concurred. Justices who did not sit did not, following oral argument,
participate in discussions, decisions, votes, or preparation of the opinion in
any way.
OPINIONBY: McHUGH
OPINION: [**418] [*190] McHUGH, J. The plaintiffs, Nicholas and Jodiann
Iannelli, individually and on behalf of their three children, brought a
negligence action against the defendant, Burger King Corporation, for injuries
sustained as a result of an assault at the defendant’s [***2] restaurant. The
[*191] plaintiffs appeal the Superior Court’s (Hampsey, J.) grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendant. We reverse and remand.
The Iannellis brought an action alleging that they sustained injuries
resulting from the defendant’s breach of its duties to maintain its premises in
a reasonably safe condition and to provide staffing, supervision, and protocols
so that employees could reasonably and properly deal with foreseeable situations
affecting the safety of patrons. While in the defendant’s restaurant with his
family, Nicholas Iannelli was assaulted by one or more unidentified persons. He
alleges he received physical injuries, while his family, who witnessed the
assault, alleges psychological damages. The trial court granted the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment, ruling that the defendant did not owe the Iannellis
a duty of care to protect them from assault. The trial court reasoned that even
considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,
there was no basis to conclude that the defendant could have foreseen the
assault. This appeal followed.
Prior to issuing its ruling, the trial court reviewed the pleadings, the
depositions [***3] of Nicholas and Jodiann Iannelli, as well as an affidavit of
the restaurant manager. Those documents revealed the following facts. During the
late afternoon or early evening hours of December 26, 1995, the Iannelli family
went to the defendant’s restaurant for the first time. Upon entering the
restaurant, the Iannellis became aware of a group of teenagers consisting of
five males and two females, whom they alleged were rowdy, obnoxious, loud,
abusive, and using foul language. Some in the group claimed they were “hammered.
” Initially this group was near the ordering counter talking to an employee whom
they appeared to know. The Iannellis alleged that one of the group almost bumped
into Nicholas. When that fact was pointed out, the teenager exclaimed, “I don’t
give an F. That’s his F’ing problem.”
Nicholas asked his wife and children to sit down in the dining area as he
ordered the food. While waiting for the food to be prepared, Nicholas joined his
family at their table. The teenagers also moved into the dining area to another
table. The obnoxious behavior and foul language allegedly continued. One of the
Iannelli [**419] children became nervous. Nicholas then walked over to the
group intending [***4] to ask them to stop swearing. As Nicholas stood two or
three feet from the closest of the group, he said, “Guys, hey listen, I have
three kids.” Whereupon, allegedly unprovoked, one or more of the group assaulted
Nicholas by hitting him, knocking him to the ground and striking him in the head
with a chair.
[*192] Although the group was obnoxious and used foul language, they had
not previously acted in a physically intimidating manner towards the Iannelli
family. Prior to the assault, the plaintiffs did not report the group’s behavior
to the restaurant manager or ask him to take any action. The Iannellis were in
the restaurant approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. The manager stated that
he had worked at the restaurant for three years prior to the day in question and
had never seen a customer attack another customer. He had no recollection of the
group engaging in offensive conduct prior to the assault.
The plaintiffs argue that a commercial enterprise such as a restaurant has a
general duty to exercise reasonable care toward its patrons, which may include a
duty to safeguard against assault when circumstances provide warning signs that
the safety of its patrons may be at risk. They also [***5] contend that the
trial court erred by failing to analyze the pleadings and the facts to be
offered at trial in the light most favorable to them.
The defendant invoked the summary judgment statute in an effort to have this
case dismissed prior to trial. See RSA 491:8-a (1997). While summary judgment
can at times be a useful avenue to pursue in order to eliminate baseless claims
from costly litigation, trial courts must be wary of its application. Its most
effective use is in breach of written contract or debt cases. See 73 Am. Jur. 2d
Summary Judgment § 4 (1974). It becomes less effective in tort cases where there
are generally more disputed issues of fact. See id. § 6. We have ruled, however,
that the statute can be called upon to dismiss some negligence actions. See
Manchenton v. Auto Leasing Corp., 135 N.H. 298, 306, 605 A.2d 208, 214 (1992);
Arsenault v. Willis, 117 N.H. 980, 984, 380 A.2d 264, 266 (1977). Yet we have
also made it clear that “although the statute is designed to reduce unnecessary
trials, it is not intended that deserving litigants be cut off from their day in
court.” Coburn v. First Equity Associates, 116 N.H. 522, 524, 363 A.2d 402, 404
(1976). [***6]
Summary judgment affords savings in time, effort and
expense by avoiding a full trial under certain
circumstances. The value of judicial economy may not be
gained, however, at the expense of denying a litigant the
right of trial where there is a genuine issue of material
fact to be litigated. Consequently, RSA 491:8-a, III places
on the moving party the burden of showing that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Moreover,
[*193] the reviewing court must consider the evidence in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,
giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences
that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence.
Concord Group Insurance Co’s v. Sleeper, 135 N.H. 67, 69, 600 A.2d 445, 446
(1991) (quotations and citations omitted). The trial court cannot weigh the
contents of the parties’ affidavits and resolve factual issues. See Salitan v.
Tinkham, 103 N.H. 100, 102, 166 A.2d 115, 117 (1960). It must determine whether
a reasonable basis exists to dispute the facts claimed in the moving party’s
affidavit at trial. [***7] If so, summary judgment must be denied. Omiya v.
Castor, 130 N.H. 234, 238, 536 A.2d 194, 196 (1987).
In reviewing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, we consider the
affidavits and other evidence, and all inferences properly drawn from them, in
the light most favorable to the non-moving [**420] party. Del Norte, Inc. v.
Provencher, 142 N.H. 535, 537, 703 A.2d 890, 892 (1997). “If our review of that
evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact, and if the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we will affirm the grant of summary
judgment.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). We review the trial court’s
application of the law to the facts de novo. See id.
Under New Hampshire law, “whether a defendant’s conduct creates a
sufficiently foreseeable risk of harm to others sufficient to charge the
defendant with a duty to avoid such conduct is a question of law.” Manchenton,
135 N.H. at 304, 605 A.2d at 213 (1992). In large part our definition and
application of the legal concepts of duty and foreseeability derive from Chief
Justice Cardozo’s majority opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company,
248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928). [***8] With respect to landowners, we
have long held that owners and occupiers of land are governed by the test of
reasonable care under all of the circumstances in the maintenance and operation
of their property. See, e.g., Tanguay v. Marston, 127 N.H. 572, 577, 503 A.2d
834, 837 (1986); Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552, 553, 364 A.2d 631, 632
(1976); Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. 388, 397, 308 A.2d 528, 534 (1973).
A duty exists on the part of a landowner when it is foreseeable that an
injury might occur as a result of the landowner’s actions or inactions.
“Generally, persons will not be found negligent if they could not reasonably
foresee that their conduct would result in an injury to another or if their
conduct was reasonable in light of the anticipated risks. Thus, duty and
foreseeability are inextricably bound together.” Manchenton, 135 N.H. at 304,
605 A.2d at 213 [*194] (citation, quotation, and brackets omitted); see also
Paquette v. Joyce, 117 N.H. 832, 837, 379 A.2d 207, 209 (1977). In this case,
the question becomes, could the defendant have anticipated a risk of injury to
the plaintiffs when [***9] other patrons were engaged in offensive conduct for
a measurable period of time? We answer that question in the affirmative.
The most instructive case, given the issues presented, is Walls v. Oxford
Management Co., 137 N.H. 653, 633 A.2d 103 (1993). In Walls, a tenant of an
apartment complex alleged that the owner’s negligent maintenance of its property
allowed her to be subjected to a sexual assault in the parking lot. We held that
as a general principle landlords have no duty to protect tenants from criminal
attacks. Inasmuch as landlords and tenants have a special relationship that does
not exist between a commercial establishment and its guests, it follows that the
same general principle of law extends to restaurants and their patrons. See,
e.g., Ahrendt v. Granite Bank, 144 N.H. , , 740 A.2d 1058, 1063 (1999)
(declining to hold that relationship between bank and its ordinary customer gave
rise to special duty to protect customer from fraud). We recognized in Walls,
however, that particular circumstances can give rise to such a duty. These
circumstances include when the opportunity for criminal misconduct is brought
about [***10] by the actions or inactions of the owner or where overriding
foreseeability of such criminal activity exists.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we must
decide whether the behavior of the rowdy youths could have created an
unreasonable risk of injury to restaurant patrons that was foreseeable to the
defendant. If the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, then a duty
existed. We hold that the teenagers’ unruly behavior could reasonably have been
anticipated to escalate into acts that would expose patrons to an unreasonable
risk of injury. The exact occurrence or precise injuries need not have been
foreseen.
Viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence could
support a finding that the teenagers’ obnoxious behavior in the restaurant was
open and [**421] notorious. Because the group was engaging in a conversation
at times with a restaurant employee, it could be found that the defendant was
aware of the teenagers’ conduct. The near physical contact between one teenager
and Nicholas Iannelli at the counter and the indifference expressed by the group
member thereafter could be deemed sufficient warning to the restaurant manager
of misconduct [***11] such that it was incumbent upon him to take affirmative
action to reduce the risk of injury. The plaintiffs allege [*195] that at
least one other restaurant patron expressed disgust with the group’s actions
prior to the assault. The manager could have warned the group about their
behavior or summoned the police if his warnings were not heeded.
In summary, the trial court’s ruling that as a matter of law the defendant
owed no duty to the plaintiffs to protect them from the assault was error. While
as a general principle no such duty exists, here it could be found that the
teenagers’ behavior in the restaurant created a foreseeable risk of harm that
the defendant unreasonably failed to alleviate. Accordingly, we reverse and
remand.
Reversed and remanded.
BROCK, C.J., and HORTON and BRODERICK, JJ., did not sit; GROFF, J., superior
court justice, specially assigned under RSA 490:3; was recused and did not sit;
GRAY, J., retired superior court justice, and McHUGH, superior court justice,
sat by special assignment pursuant to RSA 490:3; all who sat concurred.
Justices who did not sit did not, following oral argument, participate in
discussions, decisions, votes, or preparation of the opinion [***12] in any
way.
Appendix A. How to Brief Cases and
Analyze Case Problems
How to Brief Cases
To fully understand the law with respect to business, you need to be able to read and
understand court decisions. To make this task easier, you can use a method of case
analysis that is called briefing. There is a fairly standard procedure that you can follow
when you “brief” any court case. You must first read the case opinion carefully. When
you feel you understand the case, you can prepare a brief of it.
Although the format of the brief may vary, typically it will present the essentials of the
case under headings such as those listed below.
1. Citation. Give the full citation for the case, including the name of the case, the
date it was decided, and the court that decided it.
2. Facts. Briefly indicate (a) the reasons for the lawsuit; (b) the identity and
arguments of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), respectively; and (c) the lower
court’s decision—if appropriate.
3. Issue. Concisely phrase, in the form of a question, the essential issue before the
court. (If more than one issue is involved, you may have two—or even more—
questions here.)
4. Decision. Indicate here—with a “yes” or “no,” if possible—the court’s answer to
the question (or questions) in the Issue section above.
5. Reason. Summarize as briefly as possible the reasons given by the court for its
decision (or decisions) and the case or statutory law relied on by the court in
arriving at its decision.
For a case-specific example of what should be included under each of the above
headings when briefing a case, see the review of the sample court case presented in
the appendix to Chapter 1 of this text.
Analyzing Case Problems
In addition to learning how to brief cases, students of business law and the legal
environment also find it helpful to know how to analyze case problems. Part of the study
of business law and the legal environment usually involves analyzing case problems,
such as those included in this text at the end of each chapter.
For each case problem in this book, we provide the relevant background and facts of
the lawsuit and the issue before the court. When you are assigned one of these
problems, your job will be to determine how the court should decide the issue, and why.
In other words, you will need to engage in legal analysis and reasoning. Here, we offer
some suggestions on how to make this task less daunting. We begin by presenting a
sample case problem:
While Janet Lawson, a famous pianist, was shopping in Quality Market, she slipped and
fell on a wet floor in one of the aisles. The floor had recently been mopped by one of the
store’s employees, but there were no signs warning customers that the floor in that area
was wet. As a result of the fall, Lawson injured her right arm and was unable to perform
piano concerts for the next six months. Had she been able to perform the scheduled
concerts, she would have earned approximately $60,000 over that period of time.
Lawson sued Quality Market for this amount, plus another $10,000 in medical
expenses. She claimed that the store’s failure to warn customers of the wet floor
constituted negligence and therefore the market was liable for her injuries. Will the court
agree with Lawson? Discuss.
Understand the Facts
This may sound obvious, but before you can analyze or apply the relevant law to a
specific set of facts, you must clearly understand those facts. In other words, you should
read through the case problem carefully—more than once, if necessary—to make sure
you understand the identity of the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) in the case and the
progression of events that led to the lawsuit.
In the sample case problem just given, the identity of the parties is fairly obvious. Janet
Lawson is the one bringing the suit; therefore, she is the plaintiff. Lawson is bringing the
suit against Quality Market, so it is the defendant. Some of the case problems you work
on may have multiple plaintiffs or defendants. Often, it is helpful to use abbreviations for
the parties. To indicate a reference to a plaintiff, for example, the pi symbol—π—is often
used, and a defendant is denoted by a delta—Δ—a triangle.
The events leading to the lawsuit are also fairly straightforward. Lawson slipped and fell
on a wet floor, and she contends that Quality Market should be liable for her injuries
because it was negligent in not posting a sign warning customers of the wet floor.
When you are working on case problems, realize that the facts should be accepted as
they are given. For instance, in our sample problem, it should be accepted that the floor
was wet and that there was no sign. In other words, avoid making conjectures, such as
“Maybe the floor wasn’t too wet,” or “Maybe an employee was getting a sign to put up,”
or “Maybe someone stole the sign.” Questioning the facts as they are presented only
adds confusion to your analysis.
Legal Analysis and Reasoning
Once you understand the facts given in the case problem, you can begin to analyze the
case. The IRAC method is a helpful tool to use in the legal analysis and reasoning
process. IRAC is an acronym for Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion. Applying this
method to our sample problem would involve the following steps:
1. First, you need to decide what legal issue is involved in the case. In our sample
case, the basic issue is whether Quality Market’s failure to warn customers of the
wet floor constituted negligence. Negligence is a tort—a civil wrong. In a tort
lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks to be compensated for another’s wrongful act. A
defendant will be deemed negligent if he or she breached a duty of care owed to
the plaintiff and the breach of that duty caused the plaintiff to suffer harm.
2. Once you have identified the issue, the next step is to determine what rule of
law applies to the issue. To make this determination, you will want to carefully
review the text discussion relating to the issue involved in the problem. Our
sample case problem involves the tort of negligence. The applicable rule of law is
the tort law principle that business owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable
care to protect their customers (business invitees). Reasonable care, in this
context, includes either removing—or warning customers of—foreseeable risks
about which the owner knew or should have known. Business owners need not
warn customers of “open and obvious” risks, however. If a business owner
breaches this duty of care (fails to exercise the appropriate degree of care toward
customers), and the breach of duty causes a customer to be injured, the
business owner will be liable to the customer for the customer’s injuries.
3. The next—and usually the most difficult—step in analyzing case problems is
the application of the relevant rule of law to the specific facts of the case you are
studying. In our sample problem, applying the tort law principle just discussed
presents few difficulties. An employee of the store had mopped the floor in the
aisle where Lawson slipped and fell, but no sign was present indicating that the
floor was wet. That a customer might fall on a wet floor is clearly a foreseeable
risk. Therefore, the failure to warn customers about the wet floor was a breach of
the duty of care owed by the business owner to the store’s customers.
4. Once you have completed Step 3 in the IRAC method, you should be ready to
draw your conclusion. In our sample problem, Quality Market is liable to Lawson
for her injuries because the market’s breach of its duty of care caused Lawson’s
injuries.
The fact patterns in the case problems presented in this text are not always as simple
as those presented in our sample problem. Often, a case has more than one plaintiff or
defendant. A case may also involve more than one issue and have more than one
applicable rule of law. Furthermore, in some case problems the facts may indicate that
the general rule of law should not apply. Suppose that a store employee told Lawson
about the wet floor and advised her not to walk in that aisle, but Lawson decided to walk
there anyway. This fact could alter the outcome of the case because the store could
then raise the defense of assumption of risk. Nonetheless, a careful review of the
chapter should always provide you with the knowledge you need to analyze the problem
thoroughly and arrive at accurate conclusions.