A court is not likely to find that Faneuil Hall was negligent for failing to remove a banana peel that was lying on the floor of its market in which Sandy slipped on. Not only could the banana peel have been dropped by another customer after the custodians had already swept the floors of the business, but also, because Sandy arrived to Faneuil Hall several hours after the business had closed and when no Faneuil Hall employees were present, no employees could have seen and therefore been provided with an opportunity to remove the banana peel. A defendant may generally be held liable for negligence if someone on their premise slips on a banana peel that, based on a judgment of its appearance and condition, was on the floor for a considerable period of time such that an employee of the defendant should have reasonably been able to discover and subsequently remove it, or if in the exercise of due care, an employee should have seen it. See generally Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 94 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1911); Goddard v. Boston & M. R. Co., 60 N.E. 486 (Mass. 1901); Mascary v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., …show more content…
Goddard, 60 N.E. at 486. Similarly, in Mascary, although the plaintiff slipped on an aged banana peel while descending a flight of stairs owned by the defendant, the court ruled in favor of the defendant noting that the banana skin may have been dropped a moment before by a stranger to the defendant, or may have come upon the stair without fault of the defendant. Mascary, 155 N.E. at 637. In both Goddard and Mascary, it is clear that the condition of the banana peel was not used in either of these courts as a basis for which their verdicts were devised. See 60 N.E. at 486; 155 N.E. at
Similar to the sisters’ observation, the analyst initially thought that the foreign material that was floating in the bottle was a condom, however, upon examination, he was scientifically certain that the foreign object was a mold. As the trial ended, the jury favored the plaintiffs, awarding them $75,000 each. Nevertheless, the trial court decreased the jury award to $25,000 each to Hagan and Parker. Both involved parties appealed to the Fifth District Court Appeals. The appellate court concluded under the case law concerning the impact rule -that the sisters had not established a claim because they did not suffer a physical injury. The appellate court reversed the jury award.
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
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
Although the plaintiff’s car was stolen, the court held that the wording of the exclusion clause was satisfactory in covering the negligence that occurred and clearly denied the parking station of any liability towards the plaintiff. If it is found that ‘loss’ equates to damages, it can be assumed that the valet parking service holds no liability for the damage to Kati’s
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
The most common type of premise liability claim is slip and fall. If you have been involved in a slip in fall in a business or premises, contact a firm
Test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior Vol. 21, No. 1, p.
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)
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
Judge Flud wrote the majority decision in the case, and found that Carlton was not personally liable for the damages to Walkovszky. Flud also found that in his reasoning, Walkovsky has ?failed to state a valid cause of action against defendant Carlton?. Flud states that if the corporation ...
Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.
What occurred in this case was that in a new build factory there had been inoperative flooring set and the claimants in this case lost money due to the flooring having to be reset again. In this case the claimants were in contract with the builders who laid the floor but decided not to sue them but to sue the sub contractors for their negligence because they were present when the builders and claimants were at meetings when discussing the flooring. Similarly, to the case Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] the court allowed the claimants to sue the defendants for their financial
Why Stella Should Stay with Stanley By the end of the play A Streetcar Named Desire by Tennesse Williams, most people criticize Stella for staying with Stanley after his abuse, but I believe Stella should stay with Stanley since she is emotionally attached to Stanley and after seeing what happened to Blanche from the societal norms in the 1940s. Throughout the play, no matter what Stanley does, Stella always goes back. She is emotionally attached to him, which makes the possibility of leaving nearly impossible. Stella can not see herself in a world without Stanley. The first time that we see Stanley become abusive is during poker night.
For many years there have been questions circling weather the decision held by the house of Lords in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC presents the return to Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 methods applied by the courts in determining and deciding the existence of duty of care in negligence. In this assignment I will investigate cases and the methods of Pre-Donoghue v Stevenson in setting out the duty of care along with the methods set, fixed and established in Donoghue v