Negligenceanswer.docx_2 (1).pdf - Negligence...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.

Negligence Answer/Chapter 7 OUTLINE OF EVENTS AND QUESTIONS (Students: You would not type this outline as part of your answer to the midterm question) A. LIST OF ACCIDENTS: 1. Jack falls in store on 1/8 inch water, breaks right arm. 2. Jack is accidentally struck by store employee; breaks left arm. 3. Jack falls while on a defective tread, breaks right leg. 4. Jack drives to hospital loses conciseness, hit by train, brakes left leg. 5. Five thousand people injured from train derailment, chemicals. 6. Jack has surgery in hospital, scalpel left in leg. 7. Jack’s damages include bodily injury and $300,000.00 per year in lost income. B. QUESTIONS TO ANSWER 1. What are Jack s claims/arguments against: a. Convenience store b. Hospital c. Train owner
2. What does the convenience store ow ner argue as against Jack’s laws uit? 3. What do the five thousand people argue and claim against:
IRAC ANALYSIS ISSUES: The issues are negligence, comparative fault/contributory negligence, strict liability, respondeat superior, medical malpractice, missing elements of a valid negligence claim, res ipsa loquitor, superseding events, lack of proximate cause, negligence per se. RULES: The rules of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. As well as the rules for the other concepts and theories identified as issues. ANALYSIS A. What Jack will argue against the convenience store, the hospital and the train company. 1. Jack will argue that the convenience store was negligent: The convenience store had a duty to exercise reasonable care in making its property reasonably safe. This duty included not creating a dangerous condition and of knowing of any dangerous condition that exists and then eliminating that dangerous condition. Jack will argue that the convenience store also had a duty to properly train and supervise its employees. - Jack will argue that the convenience store was negligent in allowing an eighth of an inch of water to exist on the floor which he stepped on and caused him to fall and break his leg. - Jack will argue the convenience store was negligent in failing to properly train and supervise its employee such that the employee did not carelessly bump into Jack and cause him injury. Jack will also argue that the convenience store is l iable to Jack for the employee’s actions under the theory of respondeat superior . Under that theory an employer is liable for the negligent acts of its employee preformed in the course of the employer s business. - Jack will also argue that the convenience store was negligent in allowing a defective tread to exist on its property. Jack will argue that the convenience store had a duty to replace or repair this defective tread and that it was negligent in failing to do so. Jack will claim that the existence of the defective tread is negligence per se in that the store was in violation of the building code in allowing the defective tread to exist. Jack can make this claim because he is a person in the class

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture