Question Presented Susan is shopping in a supermarket. She passes through the fresh fruit section, slips on a squashed banana and breaks her hip. Does she have a legal claim against the supermarket? Short Answer Yes. This is because it’s the supermarket responsibility to ensure that the premises around are well cleaned and free from anything that can cause harm or danger to any of their customer or workers. Presence of the squashed banana in the premises is a sign of mismanagement and recklessness. Statement of Facts On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law) The supermarket is located on the third floor of a known …show more content…
Robert Diotalevi FROM: Lucy Opauski RE: Robert Case - John Reckless Driving DATE: November 5, 2016 Question Presented John and Robert are enjoying their first ride in Johns new Miata Convertible with the top down. While the sun is now out. It has just rained, there are still puddles on the road and John is driving much too fast. John loses control of the car on the sharp curve and skids. Robert not wearing his seatbelt, is thrown out from the vehicle and is injured. John, belted in, had gained control of the car and has no injuries. His car is undamaged. Is John liable for damage claim for damage claim from Robert who was not wearing a seatbelt? Short Answer Yes. John is liable to damage claim by Robert. This is under deep insight that the cause of the accident was due to the over speeding despite the weather. Additionally, John gained control after Robert was thrown out. He skidded intentionally to have Robert thrown out. Therefore, John is liable for the claim. Statement of
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Customer loyalty is another competitive advantage. Trader Joe’s doesn’t provide membership card to the customer, however customer still would like to choose Trader Joe’s just because of this
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
The respondent (Zaluzna, plaintiff) entered the foyer of a supermarket owned by the appellant (Australian Safeway Stores, defendant), of which due to wet weather conditions, the flood had become, “wet or moist”. The respondent slipped and fell on the floor, causing injuries to the respondent. The respondent sued for damages resulting of negligence, and a breach of the general duty of care, and the special duty of care owed by an occupier to an invitee.
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
John and Megan are at a crowded theater. In the press of people exiting the theater, John accidentally steps on Megan's toe and breaks it. Megan can sue John for the tort of battery.
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
First let us define negligence. “Negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. The risk must be foreseeable, it must be such that a reasonable person performing the same activity would anticipate the risk (Miller, 2013).” For Myra’s claim of negligence to be proved her team must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Our defense will be based on Myra’s assumption of risk as a judge, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence.
This paper will discuss how the courts use the concept of duty of care in the English legal system to limit liability and how through case law they have created specific principles and standard tests which have placed limits on dealing with negligence.
On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through the pants that she was wearing. Upon arriving at the hospital she was informed by the doctors that she suffered third degree on six percent of her skin. Liebeck suffered tremendously as a result of the burn. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo surgery. Apart from that she was somewhat disabled for two years. Liebeck made attempts to settle with McDonald, she wanted them to be accountable for the injury she suffered. She wanted them to pay for the incurred expenses as well as the expense she anticipated in the future. McDonald on the other hand agreed to pay $800.00 but Liebeck was asking for $20.000. This case wasn’t settled using ADR methods so it became a trial (Wiki, n.d).
The liability for negligent misstatement may arise from pure economic loss. According to Steele (2010), ‘Economic losses will be regarded as “pure” if they do not flow from any personal injury to the claimant nor from physical damage to his or her property’. The boundaries between “pure” economic loss and the loss which is “consequential” from damage were established by the Court
Both Sam and Ronny had knowledge of all the wrong doings that they were doing. From the drag racing, to the speeding, to running the red light, to hitting Sam and Running over Sam and not stopping. Not only will they be charged with Intentional Tort of battery, but they will be charged with a hit and run as well. Intentional Tort of Battery is voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to do something closely associated with them. Ronny and Sam ran the red light which means if will be easier to catch them because red lights have cameras on them. Both Ronny and Sam will have to pay for the damages because there is no way of knowing which injury or injuries Ronny caused and which injury or injuries Sam caused. Because it was 2 people (Ronny and Sam) they are both responsible for Pete’s injuries it is joint liability. If one of them are broke (Ronny or Sam) the one with the money with have to pay if they get sued and then the other would have to pay the other back. So if Ronny was broke, Sam would have to pay Pete for the both of them and then Ronny would reimburse Sam. If Ronny and Sam’s defense is Assumption of risk they might be able to win the case, but I hardly doubt they will win because even though stepping foot onto the street is a risk in it self, having the right of way to walk counter acts the
C & C grocery store currently operates under a goal approach. They were committed to customer service and satisfaction. This approach provided the grocery chain with the profitability and growth they strived to obtain. The stores operative goals were attained and the chain had over 200 stores in operation. For years overall performance for C & C was excellent and came with ease. Unfortunately employee development and innovation and change weren't a top priority and it began to show. To remain successful C & C had to outsource and get advice from a team of consultants. The team dissected the company from top to bottom and advised the chain to implement an internal approach to go along with the goal approach. Implementing the internal approach will give the store managers full control of their stores which they do not currently possess. The store managers should be knowledgeable in all areas of the store to be able to fully communicate with staff. It was difficult for the district managers to give each store location the time and attention they needed when they were responsible for several other stores. Giving store managers more responsibility was a terrific idea of the consultants because the store managers have more day to day customer and employee interaction and could better assist needs. C & C was in desperate need of providing employee training and development. Cross training is beneficial for company as well as employees. Employees get the opportunity to learn other job positions and have the ability for advancement opportunities within the company. The company benefits from cross training because it provides flexibility if a store is short staffed, and it provides empowerment. A store full of happy employees from mana...
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.