It's Business Law class. Need it within next 3 hrs.
sareee24
SampleAnswerforTortsTest-1.docxSample Answer for Torts Test (Negligence; Agency)
Facts
Mr. Spiller, a shopper at a grocery store, knocks a juice container from a shelf. The customer next to him, Mrs. Pi, slips on the spilled juice and breaks her arm. A store employee rushes to help her. Mrs. Pi asks that the employee call her husband. Her husband arrives in half an hour and slips on the same puddle of juice and breaks his leg. Can Mrs. Pi or Mr. Pi sue the store for negligence?
Rules
Negligence is the failure to exercise the care of a reasonable person under the circumstances.
To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show defendant:
1. owed plaintiff a legal duty of due care,
2. conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances (“reasonable person” standard),
3. cause (direct and proximate), and
4. personal injury or property damage.
Respondeat Superior (vicarious liability) imposes liability on the master (principal/employer) for the harm (negligence and certain other wrongs) of the servant (agent/employee).
The agent’s negligence which results in respondeat superior liability must be within the scope of the agent’s employment.
Independent contractor. An independent contractor is an independent business person who may be an agent for contract purposes (e.g. sale of real estate), but not as a servant for vicarious liability.
Proximate cause means the defendant is liable for those consequences which are reasonably foreseeable. The plaintiff was in the foreseeable zone of danger.
Analysis (Your writing)
To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show defendant:
1. owed plaintiff a legal duty of due care,
2. conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances (“reasonable person” standard),
3. cause (direct and proximate), and
4. personal injury or property damage.
The store owed Mr. and Mrs. Pi a legal duty of care because stores must protect customers from dangerous conditions in the store. The store is responsible for negligent actions by store employees through the theory of respondeat superior.
Respondeat Superior (vicarious liability) imposes liability on the master (principal/employer) for the harm (negligence and certain other wrongs) of the servant (agent/employee). The employee that rushed to help Mrs. Pi is identified as an employee so the store as employer is liable for negligent harm caused by that employee.
Was the employee’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances? A reasonable employee would have cleaned up the spill to prevent further injuries to customers after a customer slipped and fell on the juice. The spill caused the injuries to both Mrs. Pi and Mr. Pi. However, the injury to Mrs. Pi was not foreseeable because the store cannot anticipate when a customer will knock a juice container from a shelf. The defendant is liable for those consequences which are reasonably foreseeable. The employee did have time after Mrs. Pi fell to clean up the juice and did not do it. His negligence was the cause of Mr. Pi’s injury. Therefore, the store is responsible for the injury to Mr. Pi but not to Mrs. Pi.
