This paper will discuss the hypothetical situation and case trouble 4. 4 and its ramifications on unintended tort or perhaps negligence. It is usually found on webpage 124 of the textbook Organization Law Today: Essentials, written by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz. While read in case, " Kim went to Ling's Market to grab a few things for dinner. It had been a wet, windy day, and the wind flow had broken water through the door of Ling's Marketplace each time the door opened. Since Kim moved into through the door, she ended up and fell into the approximately one half " of rainwater that got accumulated on to the floor. The director knew from the weather conditions yet had not posted any sign to alert customers of the water danger. Kim hurt her again as a result of the fall and sued Ling's for injuries. Can Ling's be heald liable for neglect? ” (p. 124). The matter presented in this scenario is actually Ling's Marketplace, the defense, can be held liable for negligence, or certainly not. In order to Betty, the plaintiff, prove that the defendant determined a tort of neglectfulness against her, she need to prove that: (1) Ling's Industry owe a duty of proper care to her; (2) Ling's Market breached this duty; (3)She suffered a legally acknowledged injury; (4) Ling's Industry breach triggered her personal injury. Each one of these things represents some negligence. According to Goldman and Sigismond (2011), neglectfulness is the break of a legal duty of care leading to an injury to another or other harm to another's house (p. 83). Additionally , Callier and Jentz (2011) say that " landowners are expected to exercise reasonable care to protect persons coming onto their home from harm” (p. 113). Later they quote: " retailer and other firms that explicitly or implicitly request persons to come upon their areas are usually billed with a responsibility to physical exercise reasonable proper care to protect those persons, who have are considered business invitees” (p. 113), which " the landowner has a duty to learn and remove any concealed dangers which may...
References: Finest, A., & Barnes, G. W. (2007). Basic cause-in-fact: the but-for test. In Basic tort law: Circumstances, statutes, and problems (p. 174). New york city: Aspen Web publishers.
Goldman, A. J., & Sigismond, Watts. D. (2011). Torts resulting from negligence. In Buisiness regulation: Principles and practices (p. 83). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Legal Information Company. (2010, August 19). But-for test. Retrieved from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test
Miller, Ur. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2011). Torts and ciber dommage. In Business rules today: The requirements (pp. 97-125, A-2). Builder: South-Western Cengage Learning.