Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

BSAD 3303 Business Test #2

Terms in this set (67)

Fact: Allen sustained injuries after slipping on a grape at a Brookshire grocery store.
Issue: Is there enough evidence to convict the Brookshire grocery store of negligence for hazardous floor conditions.
Holding: The court ruled in favor of Brookshire.
Reasoning: There was evidence of smashed grapes, but not enough evidence to show Brookshire had substantial knowledge of the dangerous condition.
Brookshire Food Stores, L.L.C. vs Allen
Fact: The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping on a supposed "slippery place".
Issue: Is the evidence sufficient at law to sustain a jury verdict against the defendant for damages.
Holding: The court ruled in favor of the defendant.
Reasoning: The plaintiff failed to produce any evidence which could have reasonably satisfied the jury that the physical harm suffered by the plaintiff was caused by a condition or activity on the defendant's premises.
May vs Hall Count Livestock Improvement Association
Fact: Dumont slipped on a chocolate-covered peanut and fell, sustaining injuries. There were no place mats around the bins where the product was located.
Issue: Is there enough evidence to convict Shaw of negligence for a potential hazard that they were aware of.
Holding: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
Reasoning: The plaintiff preseneted evidence that there existed a foreseeable risk of a recurrent condition and that Shaw's did not exercise reasonable care in failing to place mats next to the bulk candy display.
Dumont vs Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.
Fact: Plaintiff sustained injuries after an explosion which was caused by the defendant's guard aiding another passenger whom in the guard's act of assistance dropped a package of fireworks.
Issue: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff protection against an unreasonable hazard?
Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the defendant.
Reasoning: The wrongdoer is the man who carries the bomb, not the one who explodes in without suspicion of danger thus the defendant is not responsible for the protection of the plaintiff.
Palsgraf vs The Long Island Railroad Company
Fact: Plaintiff sustained an injury after turning on a vanity light switch and received an electrical shock causing him to strike the bathroom door frame.
Issue: Is there a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff?
Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the defendant
Reasoning: This incident has no rasonable foreseeability of potential harm to the defendant's customers.
Schmid vs Fairmont Hotel Company-Chicago
Fact: The plaintiffs sustained injuries after their escape from the defendant's inn due to a fire started by an arsonist.
Issue: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care for an unforeseeable fire.
Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
Reasoning: The defendant is responsible for creating obvious and assessable routes of escape to customers in case of fire which is foreseeable.
Addis vs Steele
Fact: Plaintiff sustained an injury after an incident involving one of the defendant's employess improperly freeing a line.
Issue: Does the assumption of risk excuse the defendant from owing the plaintiff a protective duty?
Holding: The Court ruled in favor of the defendant.
Reasoning: The court determined that the potential hazard of freeing a line is an inherent risk of the sport.
Mosca vs Lichtenwalter
Fact: Plaintiff had willfully volunteered to ride on a mechanical bull after signing a Participant Agreement, but was thrwon off the bull and sustained injuries.
Issue: Does the defendant owe the plaintiff protection from potential harm?
Holding: The court ruled in favor of the defendant.
Reasoning: The defendant owed no duty of protection to the plaintiff since there was advanced warning of the possibility of being injured as a result of falling off the mechanical bull.
Lilya vs The Greater Gulf State Fair, Inc.
Fact: Late at night, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted while staying at the defendant's motel.
Issue: Is the defendant negligent in failing to warn or take precautions to protect the plaintiff against the assault?
Holding: The court ruled in favor of the defendant but allowed a 3% compensation for damages to the plaintiff under comparative negligence.
Reasoning: The defendant owed no duty to warn the plaintiff and under the plaintiff's own lack of vigilance and safety did the incident occur.
Wassel vs Adams
Duty- That the defendnat owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
Breach- That the defendant breached that duty.
Causation- That the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury.
Damages- That the plaintiff suffered a legally recongnizable injury.
Negligence, the four elements of a claim.
Landowners are expected to exercise reasonable care to protect persons coming onto their property from harm.
Premises Liability: the owner's duty
Legal cause, which exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Ex. camping and setting a fire in the woods which burns down the forrest and causes an explosion on a power plant. What is the man responsible for?
Proximate cause, the concept
If an injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act, then there is causation in fact. "but for" the wrongful act, the injury would not have occurred.
Cause-in Fact and the but-for test
A doctrine under which a plaintiff may not recover for injuries or damage suffered from risks he or she knows of and has voluntarily assumed. (1) knowledge of the risk (2) voluntary assumption of the risk.
Assumption of risk, concept and the two elements.
A rule in tort law that completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if the damage suffered is partly the plaintiff's own fault.
Contributory Negligence
Sets with similar terms