## Facts

- Katherine Greene was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by Chris Blevins.
- Blevins purchased breakfast items and hot coffee at a Hardee’s drive-through operated by Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., and handed the items to Greene.
- Greene held two cups and placed a plate on her lap; the coffee was in a lidded Styrofoam cup that she described as comfortable to hold.
- As the car slowly crossed a “bad dip” at the parking lot exit, coffee splashed out and burned Greene’s legs through her clothing; Blevins recalled Greene saying the lid came off.
- Greene could not say whether the cup was tilted or whether the lid had been fully secured when she received it.
- In reacting to the burn, Greene threw items to the car floor and stepped on the cup; later the cup bottom was damaged and the lid was at least partially off.
- Greene received emergency treatment for burns.
- Greene and Blevins generally understood that hot coffee can cause burns.

## Issues

1. Whether Greene produced sufficient evidence that the coffee or its packaging was unreasonably dangerous (and thus breached the implied warranty of merchantability) under Virginia law.
2. Whether Greene produced sufficient evidence of negligence, including serving coffee at an unreasonably high temperature, providing a defective or improperly secured lid, or failing to warn of a non-obvious danger, and that any breach proximately caused the injury.
3. Whether Greene’s evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted Boddie-Noell’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.
- Greene failed to present competent evidence that the coffee temperature or lid security violated any applicable safety or industry standard or otherwise constituted a defect.
- Greene offered no proof that a defect in the cup or lid existed when it left the restaurant’s control, as opposed to being caused by events in the car (including stepping on the cup).
- The risk of burns from spilled hot coffee was open and obvious; absent proof of an abnormal hazard, no duty to warn was shown.
- The accident and injury alone did not permit an inference of defect or negligence.

## Legal Principles

- Under Virginia implied-warranty/products-liability principles, a plaintiff must show the product was unreasonably dangerous for its ordinary purpose, typically through evidence of defect or nonconformity with relevant standards.
- Hot coffee is not unreasonably dangerous merely because it can burn if spilled; liability requires evidence of an abnormal temperature or other actionable defect.
- For negligence and failure-to-warn claims, there is generally no duty to warn of open and obvious risks associated with ordinary use, absent a hidden or non-obvious danger.
- At summary judgment, speculation and subjective impressions do not create a triable issue; the nonmovant must produce affirmative evidence of breach/defect and causation.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the restaurant because Greene could not substantiate that the coffee or its lid was defective or unreasonably dangerous when sold, could not tie her injuries to any proven breach of duty, and faced an open-and-obvious risk inherent in hot coffee.


Greene v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., 966 F. Supp. 416 (W.D. Va. 1997)