Legal memo

We filed a complaint last month in trial court alleging that there was negligence on the cancel of the store. We were seeking an award for damages. In the answer to the complaint the store alleges that Samaritan Smith had a duty to cancel the spill, and was unable to fulfill that duty because she was distracted by her misbehaving child. The store claims that her creation distracted makes her equally at fault for the Injuries sustained in her trip and fall stroking. state of matterment of Facts While shopping at the local marketplace store with her young son, Samaritan Smith lipped on clear, gel shampoo that had spilled Into the Isle. The fall resulted In a broken hip, requiring an overnight stay at the hospital as well as several months of visible therapy. The grocery store Indicated that although they complete hourly Isle clearance checks they were unaware of the spill. Issues 1. Was the store negligent for not providing an environment free from hazards? 2.Is Samaritan Smith discontinueially responsible for her injuries based on her not keeping comme il faut lookout and not avoiding the spill? 3. Based on the Comparative Fault Act, can Samaritan Smith reform for her injuries? BRIEF ANSWERS 1. In Indiana the owner oaf business or store is required to snap reasonable measures to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition for persons who will be using the property. 2. Samaritan Smith does have a responsibility to maintain her own personal safety. 3. Based on the Comparative Fault Act, can Samaritan Smith recover for her injuries? Applicable Statue 1.A Claimant is barred from recovery if the Claimants opening fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contribute to the claimants damages. The amount awarded is reduced and perhaps eliminated based on the level of claimants fault found. Legal memo By cathedral The store claims that her being distracted makes her equally at fault for the injuries slipped on clear, gel sh ampoo that had spilled into the isle. The fall resulted in a physical therapy. The grocery store indicated that although they complete hourly isleLegal MemoI chose to asseverate contributory negligence because we cannot deny that cases of beer were not properly secured In our vehicle, proving that It was some parting of our own default. The complainant shall be barred from recovering damages if the Trier of fact finds that the contributory fault on the part of the plaintiff is more than 50% of the proximate cause of the Injury or damage for which recovery is sought. Illinois State Statute 735 ILLS 5/2-1116(c) (2011). Thus we must provide proof that the plaintiff, Mr..King contributed at least 51% of the negligence. A similar case would be Attainment v innovational Industries, INC. 960 F. Ad 692 1992 U. S. App. LEXIS 6205. This case Involved a collision between a hand truck (Defendant, Modern Industries) and a person (Attainment). Attainment died due to his Injuries resulting fro m the accident. The decedents capture brought a wrongful death slut against Modern Industries. Attainment was found to be 51% at fault thus the claim against Modern Industries was denied.Attainments actions before he collided with Modern Industries are what led to the accident In the first place. An example of one of Attainments contribution to the accident Is No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving barter unless and until It Is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without Interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic or a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers. Ill. Rev. Stats. 1989, chi. 95 1/2, par. 11-1407. Legal Memo PAP 10 By Jeroboams that cases of beer were not properly secured in our vehicle, proving that it was some percentage of our own default. The plaintiff shall be barred from recovering is more than 50% of the proximate cause of the accidental injury or damage for which recovery U. S. App. LEXIS 6205. This case involved a collision between a truck (Defendant, Modern Industries) and a person (Attainment).Attainment died due to his injuries resulting from the accident. The decedents mother brought a wrongful death suit Modern Industries are what led to the accident in the first place. An example of one of Attainments contribution to the accident is No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor