A man comes into a store and slips on a wet floor. He breaks his arm and has to stay off work for 2 weeks. His arm does not heal wee and he has a slight loss of mobility. His job is in a furniture removal business and he doesn't feel like he is up to the job anymore. He wants to sue the store for the pain he was caused plus compensation for having to find new work.
The store manager says the floor was mopped by a mentally retarded worker who used too much water. He said he was trying to help mentally retarded people fine useful jobs and this personwas new. There was a sign saying Caution-wet floor but it had not been placed in a good spot where customers could see it right away.
The prosecuting council wants the store owner to pay full compesation of $100,000
The defending cuoncil wants the amn to be paid only $10,000, if anything.
The jury has to decide if any compensation should be paid and if so how much.
pls help me! this is for my L.A. class..im on the prosecuting side.
Answers:
The store has already admitted knowledge and causation of the dangerous condition. I can't say which figure is better, since I don't know what the man's actual damages are. But given the either/or presented, I'd have to give him what he's asking for, since the store blew away their own defenses.
It doesn't matter if a talking monkey was the one mopping the floor. It's the store's responsibility to provide a safe environment for it's patrons. They failed to do so. They have to pay full compensation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment