Assignment: Case Study

MEMORANDUM
To: John Jacobs
From: Cesar Vargas
Date: December 5, 2011

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Is Target, liable for injuries sustained by Beth Adams, a store patron who slipped on a puddle of soda that had been pooled on the floor for a minimum of four hours? 2. Are target and its employees liable to Ann and Beth for the intentional infliction of emotional distress for the way employees handled the situation. Smith and Jones who are employees laughed, told Ann her daughter was faking her injuries, went around her daughter and failed to call 911. 3. Are target and its employees liable to Ann and Beth for the negligent infliction of emotional distress for the way employees handled the situation. Smith and Jones who are employees
who failed to call 911 and who continued to work around Beth.
BRIEF ANSWER 1. Probably Yes. Target will probably will be liable based on negligence for injuries sustained by Beth Adams 2. Probably Yes, Target and its employees will probably be liable for the intentional infliction of emotional distress to Beth but not Ann based on the conduct of it’s to employees Smiths and Jones. 3. Probably Yes, Target and its employees will probably be liable for the negligent infliction of emotional distress to Beth but not Ann based on the conduct of its employees.
FACTS
Our clients Beth and Ann Adams are suing Target for Negligence, Intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. On October 1, 2011, at about 4:05 p.m., Ms. Adams and her five year old daughter, Beth Adams, were shopping in the food section at the local Target Store. There were many employees in the store because it was the start of the evening shift, which begins at 4:00pm. The employees were re-stocking inventory as part of normal store routine. The previous shift had inspected the premises at 12:00 p.m. that day. The inspection report indicated that the floors were clear and that no obvious spills had been reported. Unbeknownst to Target and its employees, a puddle of soda had apparently accumulated on the floor of the beverage aisle from the leakage of a bottle. The bottle appears to have been damaged by a blade which is used by employees to open cardboard cartons of soda before placing them on the shelves. The leak could have stated after the previous inspection was completed because no leakages were noted in the inspection report. As Ann and Beth walked down the beverage aisle, Beth slipped on the puddle of soda, and hit the back of her head on the floor. Ann watched in horror as Beth fell to the ground. Ann immediately went to her daughter’s aid. Beth was non-responsive and appeared to be unconscious. A few store employees, who were in the area, went over to the beverage aisle to see what happened.
At this point, Ann was hysterical because she thought her daughter might die. She urged the employees to call an ambulance. One employee, Smith, laughed it off and told Ann that her daughter appeared to be “faking” her injuries. Another employee, Jones told Ann to pick her child up off the floor, because they had to re-stock the shelves and Beth was in the way. Smith and Jones then proceeded to re-stock the beverage aisles walking around Ann and Beth, who lay unconscious on the ground. Finally, another customer in the store called
911. Ann began screaming at Smith and Jones. Smith and Jones told Ann to “shut her trap.” In the client interview, Ann called the conduct of Smith and Jones “extreme and outrageous.” The store manager came to the beverage aisle to see what was happening. The manager immediately performed CPR on Beth until paramedics arrived. Employee records showed that numerous customer complaints had been made against Smith and Jones for their bad attitudes and poor customer relations. Ann and Beth were both transported to the hospital. Beth was diagnosed with a severe concussion and remained in the hospital for two weeks. Ann was also seen by a doctor. Ann told the doctor that she suffered great emotional shock to her nervous system as a result of the events at the Target store. Ann blamed the comments made by Smith and Jones for the shock to her nervous system. As a result of her injuries, Ann has not been able to return to work. Furthermore, Beth will require extensive rehalition to recover from her injuries.
DISCUSSION
This memo first will address whether Target is liable for negligence. Next it will focus on if Target and its employees are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress, then finally it will focus on if Target and its employees are liable for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. I. Is Target liable to Beth for negligence?
Before a court can consider Beth’s claim of negligence, the plaintiff must establish that Target owed a duty of due care to the person injured, or to a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member.
Valdez v. J. D. Diffenbaugh Co., 51 Cal. App. 3d 494, 124 Cal. Rptr. 467 (1975). Negligence has four causes of actions that all must be proven for there to be negligence. The elements of a cause of action for negligence are 1) a legal duty to use due care, 2) a breach of that duty, 3) a reasonably close causal connection between that breach and the plaintiff’s resulting injury, and 4) actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. People v. Young, 20 Cal. 2d 832, 129 P.2d 353 (1942); Ahern v. Dillenback, 1 Cal. App. 4th 36, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (1991); see also Cal. Civ. Code §1714(a) (“everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself”). Target has a legal duty to business invites to keeps them from harm, Target breached that duty by not having a regular inspection of the aisle and letting soda puddle on the floor that caused an injury. By not having regular inspections of the aisle Target allowed a dangerous condition to develop which if Target had regular inspection of the aisle, employees would have noticed the puddle of soda and
cleaned it up. Beth was severely injured and was knocked unconscious. Beth was in the hospital for two weeks and suffered a severe concussion and will require extensive rehabilitation to recover from her injuries. Therefore, Target is probably liable for Negligence. II. Are target and its employees liable to Ann and Beth for the intentional infliction of emotional distress?
The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: '(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct.' “(Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 903.)
"Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." (Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209)
" 'It is generally held that there can be no recovery for mere profanity, obscenity, or abuse, without circumstances of aggravation, or for insults, indignities or threats which are considered to amount to nothing more than mere annoyances.' " (Yurick v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1128 [257 Cal.Rptr. 665], internal citations omitted.)
"It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware." (Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 903-904.)
"Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to endure it." (Fletcher v. Western Life Insurance Co. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 397 [89 Cal.Rptr. 78].) It is likely that the court will find in favor of plaintiff Ann for intentional infliction of emotional distress, but not Beth because she was unconscious at the time of the intentional emotional distress. Because Target and its employees made light of Beth’s injuries by joking, continuing to work around Beth as she laid unconscious on the floor. The employees also failed to call 911 and told “Ann to shut her trap” when she tried to get help from the two employees on the scene. It has also been found that these two employees have had multiple complaints about their bad attitudes and poor customer relations. Under all these circumstances no reasonable man in a civilized society should be expected to ensure this type of behavior directed at them. III. Are target and its employees liable to Ann and Beth for the negligent infliction of emotional distress?

The negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort but the tort of negligence. The traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care is a question of law. Its existence depends upon the foreseeability of the risk and upon a weighing of policy considerations for and against imposition of liability.' " (Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 [257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278], internal citations omitted.)
Direct victim cases are cases in which the plaintiff's claim of emotional distress is not based upon witnessing an injury to someone else, but rather is based upon the violation of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff. The label "direct victim" arose to distinguish cases in which damages for serious emotional distress are sought as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is "assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.(Wooden v. Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038 [71 Cal.Rptr.2d 891], internal citations omitted.)
In a negligence action, damages may be recovered for serious emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury: "We agree that the unqualified requirement of physical injury is no longer justifiable." (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 928.)
The California Supreme Court has acknowledged the Hawaii Supreme Court's definition of "serious emotional distress": "Serious mental distress may be found where a reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances of the case." (Molien, supra, 27 Cal.3d at pp. 927-928, quoting Rodrigues v. State (1970) 52 Haw. 156, 173 [472 P.2d 509].) It is likely that the court will find in favor of plaintiff Ann for Negligent infliction of emotional distress, but not Beth because she was unconscious at the time of the negligent emotional distress. Because Target and its employees made light of Beth’s injuries by joking, continuing to work around Beth as she laid unconscious on the floor. The employees also failed to call 911 and told “Ann to shut her trap” when she tried to get help from the two employees on the scene. It has also been found that these two employees have had multiple complaints about their bad attitudes and poor customer relations. Under all these circumstances no reasonable man, normally constituted, would be unable to adequately cope with the mental stress engendered by the circumstances.