Defendant Ling’s Market Essay
Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
Kim was shopping for dinner at Ling’s Market, as Kim entered she slipped and fell due to the water accumulated on the floor (that the manager was aware of) because of the high winds and rain that blew into the Market each time the door was opened. Kim suffered a back injury as a result of the fall. Kim filed suit against Ling’s Market, the defendant, arguing that Lings performed a “tort of negligence” due to their absence of a warning about the wet floor, and disregard in the exercise of a “reasonable degree of care to protect business invitees.
To prove that the defendant, Ling’s should be liable for Kim’s injuries, the plaintiff, must prove that Lings did not in fact exercise a reasonable degree of care to protect Kim and warn her about the wet floor hazard due to the absence of a warning sign or cones, and committed a tort of negligence.
Is the lack of a warning sign a tort of negligence, and should it be mandated that Lings is liable for Kim’s injuries suffered as a result of the fall?
The plaintiff feels that the defendant, Ling’s Market, should in fact be liable for Kim’s injuries she suffered as a result of the fall, and a tort of negligence has been committed due to the lack of a reasonable degree of care to protect business invitees.
At www.barronstad.com it states that “A business owner is required to use due care to keep the premises presumably safe for customers, or at least to warn them of dangers that might arise from their use of the premises.” According to the author of the text, explains that a “tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to the required duty of care.” The defendant, Lings, owed a duty of care to Kim and had breached said duty. As a result Kim suffered a legally recognizable injury. By not providing a caution sign of some sort, Lings did not adhere to the “duty of care”.
The plaintiff argues that the lack in a caution sign or warning of the half inch of water standing on the floor, with the manager knowing about the danger, is in violation of Lings, duty of care. The manager knew the condition of the floor, which was a direct result of more than the mere tramping of many feet under the conditions of weather then existing.
The plaintiff argues that the excess water standing on the floor (one half inch) was a foreseeable risk that the business operator (manager) was aware about and should have posted a warning about the danger. If the defendant had posted a caution about the inherent danger the plaintiff, Kim, would have been more liable to avoid the outcome (Kim’s back injury).
Miller/Jentz, 9th Ed. Text, Ch 4, pg 112-115.