'Introduction to Legal Research Essay\r'

'Facts: Samantha Smith, a new-fangled and single mother, was shopping in the toilet aisle of the local marketplace memory in Indiana. At near 1:30 pm she set downped and fell on a short shampoo that had leaked disclose of one of the bottles and onto the traumatise. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of any(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) dangerous hazards at 1:00 pm by an older employee who waits glasses. As a result of the fall, Samantha was transported to the hospital where she was admitted long and diagnosed with a grim hip. She will require many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no health fright insurance coverage to cover any of her expenses and is responsible for a two year old son.\r\n cut off: Did the marketplace bloodline hold back knowledge of the savage spunk on the coldcock, therefore being held  conjectural for the injuries that Samantha sustained?\r\nRule: The grocery inventory can only be held apt(predicate) if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition. Breach of transaction is delineate as â€Å"the violation of a legal or moral covenant; the failure to act as the constabulary obligates one to act; especially a fiduciary’s violation of an pact owed to a nonher.” low’s Law dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009) Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the tired of oversee that a reasonably heady psyche would have exercised in a comparable situation; any necessitate that waterfall below the legal monetary standard open to protect others against unreasonable hazard of harm.” dark’s Law mental lexicon 1133 (9th ed. 2009) \r\ndepth psychology: Samantha is non able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the root word; therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held nonresistant for Samantha’s injuries. cobblers last: It is not apparent that Samantha will be awarded damages for her injuries because she cannot pose proof that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous spill on the degree. Vaughn v. depicted object Tea Co., 328 F.2d 128 (7th Cir. 1964) \r\nFacts: The Plaintiff, Vaughn, slipped and on a piece of lettuce and fell on the floor while shopping at subject field Tea Company. The store employee stated to a lower place testimony that she did not recall killing or picking up anything polish off of the aisle the day before the slip and fall occurred. The lettuce had multiple step attach 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 back that resulted in the need for surgery. Vaughn filed a lawsuit against the home(a) Tea Company for damages for the injuries she sustained. A jury found the Defendant immoral and awarded damages to Vaughn in the amount of $25,000.\r\n actualise more: how to write an introduction diss ever\r\nNational Tea Company appealed the compositors case stating there was no proof of sloppiness. Issue: Did National Tea Company have any knowledge of the lettuce on the floor which would ultimately hold them presumable for the Vaughn’s injuries? Rule: Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the standard of sell that a reasonably prudent someone would have exercised in a confusable situation; any conduct that locomote below the legal standard realized to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) present showed that the lettuce had been stepped on multiple sequences and, therefore, the jury could find that it was on the floor  wide enough time for someone at the store to have a duty to clean it up. Analysis: The jury held that National Tea Company was negligent and a breach of duty occurred because they lettuce was on the floor for a long enough time period to be noticed and up stage; therefore, Vaughn was awarded damages.\r\nCarmichael v. Kroger, 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)\r\nFacts: Carmichael was shopping in the dairy farm aisle at Kroger and at approximately 2:00 pm slipped on a scummy egg. As a result, Carmichael filed a lawsuit against Kroger for damages as a result of the slip and fall. Records show that a Kroger employee checked the dairy aisle alone after 2:00 pm the comparable day and confirmed that there was no hazardous material on the floor. Carmichael was uneffective to prove to the Court that Kroger knew about the broken egg on the floor; therefore, Kroger was not found negligent or probable for Carmichael’s injuries.\r\nIssue: Did Kroger know about the broken egg on the floor which in turn would hold them liable for Carmichael’s injuries?\r\nRule: Liability cannot be imposed if Kroger was not aware of the broken egg on the floor. Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the standard of care t hat 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.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) \r\nAnalysis: Carmichael failed to prove to the Court that Kroger had any knowledge of the broken egg on the floor that created a hazard; therefore, Kroger was not negligent in its duty of care to Carmichael and cannot be held liable for Carmichael’s injuries. Conclusion: The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower hook’s decision that Carmichael failed to prove negligence and breach of duty.\r\n'