Torts Final Project.docx - TO Supervising Attorney FROM Nicole Forsythe RE Green v Costco DATE QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1 Under Maryland law was there proof

Torts Final Project.docx - TO Supervising Attorney FROM...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 7 pages.

TO: Supervising Attorney FROM: Nicole Forsythe RE: Green v. Costco DATE: 10/15/2017 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under Maryland law, was there proof of a dangerous condition? 2. Under Maryland law, was there proof of constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition? 3. Under Maryland law, is there evidence of a breach of the duty of care a business owner has to keep invitees safe on the business premises? SHORT ANSWER 1. No. The Plaintiff failed to prove that there was a dangerous condition. 2. No. There is no evidence that Costco knew the sign had fallen over, nor is there evidence that the sign had lain flat on the floor for a long enough time to constitute constructive notice. 3. No. In failing to prove a dangerous condition existed, the Plaintiff failed to prove that the Defendant breached the duty of reasonable care owed to business invitees. STATEMENT OF FACTS Rachel Green (the Plaintiff) alleges she sustained severe bodily harm as a result of tripping on mop water while shopping in the Brooklyn Park, Maryland Costco (the Defendant). The Plaintiff claims that her fall resulted from the mop water and that the yellow caution sign warning customers of a wet floor had fallen and was not visible. Thus, the Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition. The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, stating a negligence claim. The Plaintiff’s claim asserts that the Defendant 1
Image of page 1
breached its duty of care to her by: 1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” 2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and 3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Defendant asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed facts are legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. DISCUSSION The Defendant plans to file a motion for summary judgement based on the undisputed facts in the present case. The Court of Appeals of Maryland has many times relied on precedence when looking at what elements the Plaintiff must prove to establish a prima facie case of negligence in order to deny a Defendant’s motion for judgement. In discussing slip and fall cases, the Maryland Courts have also relied upon the definition of the duty of care a business owner has to its customers as defined in the Maryland Law Encyclopedia section on Negligence. It is important to first define the types of customers, as well as define the duty of care owed.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture