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.
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.
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
. Under that theory an employer is liable for the negligent acts of
its employee preformed in the course of the employer
- 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