Martinelli v. Custom Accessories, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A woman was burned after hot coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts spilled in her car. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no evidence the coffee was unreasonably hot or the cup was defective, and holding the danger of hot coffee is obvious.
Legal Significance: Reinforces that for a hot beverage to be defective, a plaintiff must prove its temperature or container exceeded reasonable standards. The inherent and obvious danger of hot coffee negates a seller’s duty to warn and can defeat negligence and warranty claims.
Martinelli v. Custom Accessories, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Lynda Martinelli purchased a cup of hot coffee from a Dunkin’ Donuts drive-thru. She placed the cup into a third-party plastic cup holder that she had recently purchased and installed by wedging it into her car door. Martinelli acknowledged that the holder seemed unstable and that she was aware the coffee was hot enough to burn her if it spilled. Concerned about its stability, she held the holder with her fingers for most of the drive home. To make a sharp turn into her driveway, she removed her hand from the holder to use the steering wheel. The holder and the cup then fell, spilling hot coffee and causing burns to her hip and thigh. The plaintiff did not present any evidence that the coffee’s temperature exceeded industry standards or that the cup and lid provided by Dunkin’ Donuts were defective or violated any applicable standard. Her claims against the franchisee and franchisor included negligence, failure to warn, and breach of warranty.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a seller of hot coffee be held liable for negligence or breach of warranty for injuries caused by a spill, absent evidence that the coffee’s temperature or its container was unreasonably dangerous or defective?
No. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a seller of hot coffee be held liable for negligence or breach of warranty for injuries caused by a spill, absent evidence that the coffee’s temperature or its container was unreasonably dangerous or defective?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in hot beverage Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi
Legal Rule
A plaintiff alleging injury from a hot beverage must produce competent evidence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt i
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the plaintiff's claims for negligence, failure to warn, and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court granted summary judgment for Dunkin’ Donuts after a customer