Critical Thinking

3.1 summary Judgment -Deborah Daughetee consumed multiple bags of microwave popcorn daily for approximately 5 years. Deborah recalled eating more than 10 different brands of buttered popcorn. After removing a bag of butter-flavored microwave popcorn from the microwave, Deborah would open the bag and draw the buttery smell into her nose and lungs. She testified that she "liked the smell of opening a bag near my face." Diacetyl is a food chemical that is an ingredient used to produce the "buttery" taste and smell of buttered microwave popcorn. Chr. Hansen, Inc., Symrise, Inc., and Firmenich, Inc. (defendants) are corporations that produce butter flavoring that contains diacetyl. Defendants sold their butter flavoring to microwave popcorn manufacturers who produced the various brands of buttered popcorn eaten by Deborah. On opening a microwave popcorn bag with butter flavoring, diacetyl vapors are released. After several industry studies found that extended exposure to diacetyl vapors could cause lung disease, many popcorn manufacturers adopted a number of safety precautions in their microwave popcorn plants to protect workers from overexposure to butter flavoring vapors. However, the popcorn makers made no changes to their products' packaging. Deborah sued the defendants claiming that she had developed respiratory injuryknown as popcorn lungby smelling the microwave popcorn that contained the buttered flavoring made by the defendants. The defendant corporations made motions for summary judgment. Should the defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted? Daughetee v. Chr. Hansen, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50804 (2013) (United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, 2013)

3.2 Service of Process- Jon Summervold purchased a remote-controlled toy watercraft from the Walmart store located in Aberdeen, South Dakota. The plaintiff sued Wal-Mart, Inc. for alleged defective design and failure to warn that arose out of the trauma he suffered when the toy watercraft exploded when he was handling it. Nine days before the three-year statute of limitations was to run on the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff had a process server serve his complaint and summons against Walmart. The process server served the complaint and summons on Josh Hehn, a Walmart assistant manager in charge of the apparel department at Walmart's Aberdeen, South Dakota, store. The assistant manager and the manager of the store were physically available at the store at the time of service. South Dakota law requires that service of process be made on the president, officer, director, or registered agent of a defendant corporation. Walmart had designated a registered agent, whose name was publicly available at a state government office as required by law, to accept service of process for South Dakota lawsuits. Walmart challenged the plaintiff's sevice of process on an assistant manager at a Walmart store rather than on its resident agent, asserting that the plaintiff's service violated South Dakota's statute for service of process against corporations. The three-year statute of limitations on Summervold's claim had run before Walmart's challenge to the legality of the service of process was heard by the court. Has plaintiff properly served defendant Walmart? Sommervold v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 709 F.3d 1234, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4972 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2013)

3.3 Summary Judgment Sandra Primrose, who was 73 years old, was shopping in a Walmart store owned and operated by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart). She picked up a watermelon from a large display stand and as she took several steps around the display to reach her shopping cart, she tripped over a corner of the display. Primrose sustained a concussion and other serious injuries as a result of the accident. Primrose sued Walmart for negligence to recover damages, alleging that Walmart "created a trap" for her. Evidence showed that the watermelon display had been used for more than four years without incident, and photographs showed that the four corners of the display were visibly marked with "Watch Step" warning signs. Walmart noted that the area in question was open and obvious. Walmart, alleging that no material facts were in dispute, M03_CHEE4006_09_SE_CH03.indd 64 28/10/14 8:27 PM # 154055 Cust: PEARSON Au: Cheeseman Pg. No. 65 Title: Business Law C/M/Y/K Short / Normal / Long DESIGN SERVICES OF S4CARLISLE Publishing Services CHAPTER 3 Judicial, Alternative, andE-Dispute Resolution 65 made a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiff Primrose objected to. Should Walmart be granted summary judgment? Primrose v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 So.3d 13, 2013 La. App. Lexis 1985 (Court of Appeals of Louisiana, 2013)