Intro to Legal Research, Unit 4 (Kaplan Online)

Unit 4 assignment

Jody A. Gibson

PA 201-02 Introduction to Legal Research

Professor Cynthia Middleton

May 11, 2013

To: C. Middleton

Re: Samantha Smith

Facts: While shopping at a local grocery store a few months ago, Samantha Smith fell, having slipped on shampoo that was on the floor. Ms. Smith was taken to the hospital where she had to stay overnight and was diagnosed with a broken hip. As a result she will need several months of physical therapy. Ms. Smith has no health insurance and is a single parent to a two year old child. The store claims the aisles are checked at the top of each hour. The day Ms. Smith fell, an elderly gentleman who wears glasses was responsible for the aisle checks. The shampoo on the floor that caused the fall was a gel that is clear in color. The stores logs show that an inspection was performed about 1 pm that day, and Ms. Smith’s fall occurred about 1:30 pm. The store claims Ms. Smith had a duty to avoid the spill but due to being distracted by her son,who0 was misbehaving to do so.

Issue: Did Ms. Smith have a duty to avoid the spill?

Rule: The main objective of the Comparative Fault Act is to modify the common law rule of contributory negligence under which, a plaintiff who was only slightly negligent was barred from recovery. Under the Comparative Fault Act, each person whose fault contributed to the injury must bear their proportionate share of the total fault.( Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1, et seq.)

(http://axilonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/50_State_Compendium_-Final_reduced_size.pdf)

Analysis: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102

In all actions brought to recover damage for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery by the plaintiff or his legal representative where such negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought, but any damages sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.(http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/00.071.002.000.html)

This statute provides that even if a plaintiff contributed to the injury or death for which they are suing, it does not prevent recovery by the plaintiff or their representative, when their negligence was not greater than the casual negligence of the defendant(s).Any damages sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished accordingly and in proportion to the negligence attributed to the plaintiff.

Conclusion: Ms. Smith has a good chance of winning her case against the store where she was injured, however the court may decide she is partially at fault.