100%(4)4 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 7 pages.
required by law to warn people of the danger, and quickly remedy the situation if they know about the hazardous area. Given that Costco does owe Ms. McDonald a duty of care, the question is did costco breach that duty of care? In order for Costco to be negligent, they would’ve had to knowabout the spill, not warn people of the danger, and not quickly remedy the situation. Thefacts presented here are that they did post a sign warning of the danger and there are
not any facts to assert they were aware of the sign they placed falling down either prior to the alleged slip and fall. Under a negligence theory, Costco did not breach their duty of care. In order to determine what injuries Ms. McDonald sustained, we will need more information. The present information provided tells us that her injuries were “serious bodily harm”. Once we are able to determine The Plaintiff’s injuries, we should research whether or not they legally meet the definition of serious bodily harm and what that definition is under the law if such a definition exist. Based on the facts, the proximate cause of the injuries Ms. McDonald alleges she sustained was the wet floor inside the Costo in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. It is important to note that proximate cause is not in and of itself enough to prove a negligence claim. “But for causation” must be able to be proven in order to bring a claim of negligence. In this situation, one could not argue that but for Costco’s actions or inaction she would nothave been injured. In this case, Costco acted reasonably under the law to protect Ms. McDonald. DiscussionUnder Maryland law, to claim a Prima Facie of Negligence, the Plaintiff must be able to prove that the defendant first has a duty of care, the defendant breached their duty of care, but for the other parties actions you would not be injured (cause in fact), proximatecause, and the Plaintiff did in fact suffer injuries or a loss. The business owner owes a duty of care to invitees, however, a person being injured in
and of itself will not constitute negligence or liability on behalf of the business owner.