Cochran v. Burger King Corporation
Missouri Court of Appeals
937 S.W.2d 358 (1996)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Chad Cochran (plaintiff) got drunk at a friend’s house, was hungry, and walked across the street to a Hardee’s. To get to the Hardee’s, Cochran crossed the parking lot of a Burger King (defendant). The Burger King was closed. Its exterior lights were off, and there was no activity inside. A half hour later, Cochran made a second food run, again crossing the Burger King parking lot. When Cochran arrived at Hardee’s he realized he’d forgotten his money. He started walking back to the friend’s house. As he crossed the Burger King parking lot, Cochran decided to check the Burger King dumpster for food. The dumpster was in an enclosure of three brick walls and a wooden gate. The dumpster area was meant for use only by Burger King employees, not the public. Unbeknownst to Cochran, but known to Burger King’s employees and manager, one of the brick walls was weak, damaged, and unstable. The top of the wall had become disconnected from the bottom of the wall due to a trash truck hitting it a month earlier. Cochran tried to climb the damaged wall. The wall collapsed, severely injuring Cochran. His left thumb and left leg had to be amputated. Cochran sued, claiming Burger King breached its duty to keep its premises in a safe condition. Burger King argued that it had no duty to Cochran because Cochran was a trespasser. The trial court found in favor of Cochran. Burger King appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.