TO: Marty Fine, Esq.
FROM: (your name),Paralegal
RE: Stormi Waller Case Analysis
DATE:
Statement of Facts
On 22 nd of January, 2018, Stormi Weller walked in Jorve Restaurant at 19:45 hoursto order food and some refreshments with a friend. Unfortunately, on her way out she slipped and fellon a concrete block as a result of grease on the restaurant floor. She sustained serious injuries throughout her which even necessitated immediate surgery on her left shoulder and wrist. Besides, as a result of carpal tunnel syndrome that developed on her right wrist, she claims that the doctors recommended future surgery. Furthermore, she claims that the area was also poorly lit in such a way that the concrete block blended into the nearby sidewalk.
Questions Presented
Was the Stormi Weller legally allowed to be on the property?
Were Stormi Weller’s actions outside the appropriate code of conduct at the time of slip and fall?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Did the Jorve Restaurant management keep their spaces clean and safe by the laws of Maryland?
Short Answer
Yes. Stormi Weller was legally allowed into the premises since it was during the normal business hours at the restaurant hence the client can be deemed as an “invitee.”
No. The actions of the client were within the appropriate code of conduct as she was only walking when she slipped and fell.
No. The property owners failed to keep the restaurant clean and safeby the laws of Maryland.
Analysis
Based on the short answers to the questions, it is clear that the Jorve Restaurant can be held liable for the state of their premises based on the theory of premises liability. The theory states that when property ownersare aware of the hazards on their property and fail to address the risk they pose, theymay be held legally accountable if someone gets injured due to their negligence (Gifford& Robinette, 2013). Based on the client’s claims, the restaurant the restaurant caused a hazardous situation in the restaurant by making the floor slippery with grease as well as failed to lit the place well. As such, the restaurant was conscious of the dangers but did nothing to fix it. Moreover, the fact that the place was poorly lit and the restaurant failed to take reasonable steps to protect the customers form the dangerous conditions by maybe displaying a sign to caution them makes it be held legally responsible for the injuries sustained by the client. In essence, it can be argued that the defendant created the condition.
Conclusion
According to Maryland’s doctrine of contributory negligence, to prove negligence claim on the part of the restaurant, these four aspects including damages, causation, breach of duty, and duty must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence (Gilbert& Gilbert, 2000). Based on theclient's claims, the claim fulfills the four conditions which imply that the restaurant failed to exercise reasonable through inspection of the premises to recognize the dangerous conditions and ensure the restaurant was safe – breach of duty.
References
Gifford, D. G., & Robinette, C. J. (2013). Apportioning liability in Maryland tort cases: Time to end contributory negligence and joint and several liability. Md. L. Rev. , 73 , 701.
Gilbert, R. J., & Gilbert, P. T. (2000). Maryland Tort Law Handbook . LexisNexis.
