Defendant Ling’s Market Essay Example for Free

Defendant Lings foodstuff EssayFactsKim was shopping for dinner party at Lings 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 resultant role of the fall. Kim filed suit against Lings 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 cling to business invitees. IssueTo prove that the defendant, Lings should be liable for Kims 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 Kims injuries suffered as a result of the fall?DecisionThe plaintiff feels that the defendant, Lings Market, should in fact be liable for Kims 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.ReasonsAt www.barronstad.com it states that A business owner is involve 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. match to the author of the text, explains that a tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of anothers failure to live up to the required vocation 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 s ign or warning of the half inch of water standing(a) 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 umpteen 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 floozie (manager) was aware about and should cast off 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 (Kims back injury).Citationshttp//www.barronstad.com/resources/resources_personal_injury http//www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/casesMiller/Jentz, 9th Ed. Text, Ch 4, pg 112-115.