Introduction to Legal Research Essay

Facts Samantha Smith, a young and single mother, was obtain in the bath gangplank of the local grocery lay in in Indiana. At approximately 130 pm she newspaper clippingped and fell on a clear shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles and onto the traumatize. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of any dangerous hazards at 100 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 low-down hip. She will require many months of fleshly therapy. Samantha has no healthcare insurance coverage to cover any of her expenses and is responsible for a two course of study old son.Issue Did the grocery store have knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor, thusly being held probable for the injuries that Samantha sustained?Rule The grocery store can only be held unresistant if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition. Breach of duty is defined as the violation of a judicial or moral obligation the failure to act as the law obligates one to act especially a fiduciarys violation of an obligation owed to another. Blacks equity Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009) failure is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a sensibly prudent psyche would have exercised in a similar situation any draw that fall below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) compend 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 likely(p) for Samanthas 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 floor. Vaughn v. National tea leaf Co., 328 F.2d 128 ( 7th Cir. 1964) Facts The Plaintiff, Vaughn, slipped and on a piece of lettuce and fell on the floor while shop at National Tea Company. The store employee stated under testimony that she did not recall cleaning or picking up anything wrap up of the aisle the day before the slip and fall occurred. The lettuce had multiple step marks 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 National Tea Company for damages for the injuries she sustained. A jury institute the Defendant guilty and awarded damages to Vaughn in the amount of $25,000.See more how to write an introduction splitNational Tea Company appealed the case stating there was no proof of disrespect. Issue Did National Tea Company have any knowledge of the lettuce on the floor which would ultimately hold them liable for the Vaughns injuries? Rule Negligence is defined as th e 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. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) Evidence showed that the lettuce had been stepped on multiple times and, therefore, the jury could find that it was on the floor massive enough time for someone at the store to have a duty to clean it up. synopsis 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 removed therefore, Vaughn was awarded damages.Carmichael v. Kroger, 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)Facts Carmichael was shopping in the dairy aisle at Kroger and at approximately 200 pm slipped on a broken 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 just after 200 pm the same day and confirmed that there was no hazardous material on the floor. Carmichael was unable to prove to the greet that Kroger knew about the broken egg on the floor therefore, Kroger was not found negligent or liable for Carmichaels injuries.Issue Did Kroger know about the broken egg on the floor which in eddy would hold them liable forCarmichaels injuries?Rule Liability cannot be imposed if Kroger was not aware of the broken egg on the floor. 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. Blacks Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) Analysis 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 du ty of care to Carmichael and cannot be held liable for Carmichaels injuries. Conclusion The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision that Carmichael failed to prove negligence and breach of duty.