Court Case

Elements of Tort

Background

Case Number: Tom v S S Kresge Co Inc 633 p 2d 439

Mae Tom went to Kresge’s store on November 15, 1977, slipped, and fell, on a clear substance on the floor. No one ever determined what the substance was, but Krese’s did sell soft drinks in the store, and customers could walk around with their drinks. Ms. Tom wishes to recover for her injuries. Can she do so?

I researched this case based on these definitions that I found from our class textbook.

A.)Tort- a civil wrong; action by another that results in damages that are recoverable.

B.) Negligence – in order to prove negligence a party must show carelessness’s or may not have thought carefully through his or her actions, but the actions were not done with the intent to cause harm.

This applies in a variety of circumstances, but it is always used when the conduct of one party did not live up to a certain minimal standards of care we are expected.

C.) But for test- but for the action or lack of action the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been injured.

D.) Proximate Cause – the foreseeability requirement of causation

F.) Damages- Plaintiff because of the high level of carelessness involved on the defendant’s part.

G.) Mode-Of-Operation - This rule looks to a business’ choice of a particular mode of operation, rather than the incident itself.

I also researched cases after this case that used this case as a precedent. I used two cases that would help with my decision. The first case that I used was Maans v. Giant of Maryland, LLC. The first link is: www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2005/161s04.pdf

In case 377 Md. 250, 263:

(2003). Section 343 reads:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but

only if, he

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and

(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and

(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

The second link that I used was Contreras vs. Walgreens #3837, an Arizona company. This is the actual case link.

http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/cv20060147opn.pdf

During research I found out that the judge threw out the Contreras case. Judge William Brammer stated that Contreras needed to prove more to have his case heard by jury. The judge