Pa201 Unit 3 Assignment
Unit 3 Assignment: Legal Analysis and FIRAC
Kaplan University
PA201-Introduction to Legal Research
Ind. Code Ann. § 34-20-3-1 (West 2011)
Facts: Samantha Smith, a young and single mother, was shopping in the bath aisle of the local grocery store in Indiana. At approximately 1:30 pm she slipped and fell on a clear shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles and onto the floor. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of any dangerous hazards at 1:00 pm by an older employee who requires glasses. As a result of the fall, Samantha was transported to the hospital where she was admitted overnight and diagnosed with a broken hip. She will require many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no healthcare insurance …show more content…
Rule: The grocery store can only be held liable if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition.
Breach of duty is defined as “the violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates one to act; especially a fiduciary’s violation of an obligation owed to another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009)
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.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)
Analysis: 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 liable for Samantha’s injuries.
Conclusion: It is not likely that Samantha will be awarded damages for her injuries because she cannot show proof that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous spill on the
Kaplan University
PA201-Introduction to Legal Research
Ind. Code Ann. § 34-20-3-1 (West 2011)
Facts: Samantha Smith, a young and single mother, was shopping in the bath aisle of the local grocery store in Indiana. At approximately 1:30 pm she slipped and fell on a clear shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles and onto the floor. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of any dangerous hazards at 1:00 pm by an older employee who requires glasses. As a result of the fall, Samantha was transported to the hospital where she was admitted overnight and diagnosed with a broken hip. She will require many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no healthcare insurance …show more content…
Rule: The grocery store can only be held liable if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition.
Breach of duty is defined as “the violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates one to act; especially a fiduciary’s violation of an obligation owed to another.” Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009)
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.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)
Analysis: 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 liable for Samantha’s injuries.
Conclusion: It is not likely that Samantha will be awarded damages for her injuries because she cannot show proof that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous spill on the