Introduction to Legal Research Essay

Facts Samantha Smith, a young and adept mother, was shopping in the bath gangplank of the local market instal in Indiana. At approximately 130 pm she slipped and ferine on a clear shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles and onto the coldcock. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of each dangerous thinks at 100 pm by an older employee who requires glasses. As a result of the downslope, Samantha was transported to the hospital where she was admitted nightlong and diagnosed with a broken hip. She will require many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no health thrill insurance coverage to cover any of her expenses and is responsible for a two year old son.Issue Did the grocery store project acquaintance of the hazardous means on the floor, therefore being held apt(predicate) for the injuries that Samantha sustained? die hard The grocery store can only be held li competent if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition. Breach of duty is defined as the violation of a sound or moral obligation the bereavement to act as the law obligates one to act especially a fiduciarys violation of an obligation owed to another. abusives right Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009) Negligence is defined as the failure to course session the stock(a) of care that a reasonably prudent person would know exercised in a similar situation any conduct that go downstairs the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable find of harm. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) psychoanalysis Samantha is not able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held probable for Samanthas injuries. Conclusion It is not likely that Samantha will be awarded alter for her injuries because she cannot show establishment that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous spill on the floor. Vaughn v. sub ject field Tea Co., 328 F.2d 128 (7th Cir. 1964) Facts The Plaintiff, Vaughn, slipped and on a piece of lettuce and fell on the floor while shopping at National Tea caller. The store employee tell under testimony that she did not recall cleaning or option up anything off of the aisle the day before the slip and fall occurred. The lettuce had multiple step marks on it which indicated that it had been there for a while. As a result of the slip and fall, Vaughn ruptured a disc in her arse that resulted in the need for surgery. Vaughn filed a effort against the National Tea Company for damages for the injuries she sustained. A panel found the Defendant guilty and awarded damages to Vaughn in the amount of $25,000.See more how to write an introduction carve upNational Tea Company appealed the case stating there was no proof of negligence. Issue Did National Tea Company have any knowledge of the lettuce on the floor which would ultimately hold them apt(predicate) for the Vaughns in juries? detect Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) Evidence showed that the lettuce had been stepped on multiple sequences and, therefore, the jury could find that it was on the floor ample enough time for soul at the store to have a duty to clean it up. Analysis The jury held that National Tea Company was negligent and a go bad of duty occurred because they lettuce was on the floor for a long enough time period to be noticed and removed therefore, Vaughn was awarded damages.Carmichael v. Kroger, 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)Facts Carmichael was shopping in the dairy aisle at Kroger and at approximately 200 pm slipped on a broken lump. As a result, Carmichael filed a lawsuit against Kroger for damages as a res ult of the slip and fall. Records show that a Kroger employee checked the dairy aisle just after 200 pm the same day and confirmed that there was no hazardous cloth on the floor. Carmichael was unable to prove to the Court that Kroger knew about the broken pelt on the floor therefore, Kroger was not found negligent or liable for Carmichaels injuries.Issue Did Kroger know about the broken egg on the floor which in turn would hold them liable forCarmichaels injuries?Rule Liability cannot be imposed if Kroger was not aware of the broken egg on the floor. Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) Analysis Carmichael failed to prove to the Court that Kroger had any knowledge of the broken egg on the floor that created a hazard the refore, Kroger was not negligent in its duty of care to Carmichael and cannot be held liable for Carmichaels injuries. Conclusion The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision that Carmichael failed to prove negligence and breach of duty.