May it please the court. Your Honor, and Members of the jury.

You get what you ask for. When you order a burger in a mcdonalds drive through with no mayo, you get a burger with no mayo. When you order a hot coffee at a hardees restaurant, you get what you would get at any other restaurant, a hot coffee. My name is John Kelly representing the Men and Women of Boddie Noell Enterprises. The facts of this case are clear and simple as well as the applicability of the law. The facts of the case are as follows. Ms. Greene was a passenger in a car driven by her boyfriend, Chris Blevins, on the morning of December 31, 1994, he purchased food from the drive-through window of the Hardee's restaurant in Wise, Virginia, operated by the Boddie Noell Enterprises. Mr. Blevins paid for the food including a hot coffee which Mr. Blevins ordered and passed everything to Ms. Greene in the passenger seat. Greene placed the plate on her lap and held a cup in each hand. According to the Plaintiff, the Styrofoam coffee cup was comfortable to hold, it didnt feel too hot, she wasnt alarmed by the heat that was in her hand. The coffee cup had a lid on top of it. It was just as she expected. It was just as her boyfriend, mr. Blevins ordered. It was Mr. Blevins that drove over an uneven patch of ground at the point at which the lot meets the road. It was not until the front tires of the car went slowly across the dip in the road, the coffee "splashed out" on the plaintiff, burning the plaintiff. As soon as the coffee burned her, Greene threw the food and drink to the floor of the car, and in the process stepped on the coffee cup. Because of this the plaintiff was unable to provide the Styrofoam cup that was given to her through the drive through window. Now, in a products liability case such as this, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. This is a burden to prove the elements of the charge that they have brought against Boddie Noell enterprises. In the state of Virginia which has jurisdiction over this trial today. To prove a case of liability, a st plaintiff must prove three elements to be more likely than not true. The 1 element, that the product was nd rd defective, 2 this defect rendered it unreasonably dangerous for ordinary or forseeable use, and 3 that this product violated a prevailing safety standard whether that standard comes from business, government or reasonable consumer expectation. So first was this product defective? The plaintiff neither showed that the lid was fastened improperly, nor that the coffee was indeed much hotter than that served by Hardees competitors. The only thing that the plaintiff showed through her deposition was that she expected the coffee to be hot, she expected it to burn her if spilled on her. Did this defect render the product unreasonably dangerous for ordinary or forseeable use? Ms. Greene alleged that the fact that the lid came off and she was burned was sufficient to show an unreasonably dangerous defect. However in the case of Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber, the court decided that proof that an accident occurred is not proof of an unreasonably dangerous product. And the only thing that Ms. Greene has proven is that she did infact suffer an accident. Now we all feel sympathy for Ms. Greene. No one should have to go through what the plaintiff has gone through. But remember, sympathy does not equal liability. Third element, Did this product violate a safety standard or regulation?

There was no violation or standard that was violated by the Hardees restaurant. The subjective perception of one person, the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish that that standard is held by a society either. To the contrary In fact, According to the Uniform Commercial Code which governs what commercial activity may or may not occur within the United States, for a product to be merchantable, that product need not be foolproof, or perfect but reasonably safe. Mrs. Greene got what she ordered, she got what she asked for, what she would have received at rd any other drive-through restaurant. Does that mean that she deserved 3 degree burns? No, not at all. No one deserves that. But an unfortunate accident for Ms. Greene, does not equal liability for Boddie Noell Enterprises.

Greene Vs. Boddie Noell

Issue: When Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Specifically Hardees Restaurant, Defendant, served coffee to Plaintiff, Ms. Greene, through a drive-through window which spilled on Ms. Greene after hitting a baddip in the road, is Boddie-Noell Liable in a products liability suit? Rule: To prove a case of liability in Virginia, a plaintiff must show that a product had a defect which
rendered it unreasonably dangerous for ordinary or foreseeable use. Id. In order to meet this burden, a plaintiff must offer proof that the product violated a prevailing safety standard, whether the standard comes from business, government or reasonable consumer expectation.

Analysis: Ms. Greene was a passenger in a car driven by her boyfriend, Chris Blevins, on the morning of
December 31, 1994, he purchased food from the drive-through window of the Hardee's restaurant in Wise, Virginia, operated by the Boddie Noell Enterprises. Mr. Blevins paid for the food including a hot coffee which Mr. Blevins ordered and passed everything to Ms. Greene in the passenger seat. Greene placed the plate on her lap and held a cup in each hand. According to the plaintiff, the Styrofoam coffee cup was comfortable to hold, it didnt feel too hot, she wasnt alarmed by the heat that was in her hand. Mr. Blevins that drove over an uneven patch of ground at the point at which the lot meets the road. It was not until the front tires of the car went slowly across the dip in the road, the coffee "splashed out" on the plaintiff, burning the plaintiff. So first was this product defective? The plaintiff neither showed that the lid was fastened improperly, nor that the coffee was indeed much hotter than that served by Hardees competitors. The only thing that the plaintiff showed through her deposition was that she expected the coffee to be hot, she expected it to burn her if spilled on her. Second, did this defect render the product unreasonably dangerous for ordinary or forseeable use? Ms. Greene alleged that the fact that the lid came off and she was burned was sufficient to show an unreasonably dangerous defect. However in the case of Featherall v. Firestone Tire & Rubber, the court decided that proof that an accident occurred is not proof of an unreasonably dangerous product. And the only thing that Ms. Greene has proven is that she did infact suffer an accident. Now we all feel sympathy for Ms. Greene. No one should have to go through what the plaintiff has gone through. But remember, sympathy does not equal liability. Thirdly, did this product violate a safety standard or regulation? There was no violation or standard that was violated by the Hardees restaurant. The subjective perception of one person, the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish that that standard is held by a society either. To the contrary In fact, According to the Uniform Commercial Code which governs what commercial activity may or may not occur within the United States, for a product to be merchantable, that product need not be foolproof, or perfect but reasonably safe.

Conclusion: Because the plaintiff has failed to prove that the coffee was defective or had violated a safety standard, my co-counsel and I ask that you the jury find Boddie Noell Enterprises not liable.