Assume that you are the judge in the following case. In this quiz, you will write out, in free form, your legal reasoning for deciding whether or not the grocery store in this case is liable for negligenceand, therefore, whether or not the Plaintiff should win.

As the judge, you will follow the IRAC method of legal reasoning. This means that you must analyze and state, in this order: (1) the Issue; (2) the applicable Rule(s) of Law; (3) the Application of the relevant rule(s) of law to the specific facts of this case; and (4) your Conclusion.

In the ISSUES section, you will state the legal issue in this case. In a case such as this involving Tort law, the issue might be stated as: Does the failure of store owner to warn customers of a wet floor constitute negligence?)

In the Rule of Law section, you will identify and state what rule(s) of law applies to this situation. This usually involves stating the essential elements that have to be proven in this particular kind of cause of action.

In a Tort wet-floor cause of action for negligence, the primary Rule of Law consists of the four essential elements that must be proven in a Tort of Negligence cause of action, namely that: (1) The defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the Plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered harm or injury; (4) the harm or injury was caused by the defendants breach of duty of care. A secondary rule of law in such negligence cases is that reasonable care includes removing or warning of risks that are forseeable.)

In the Application section, you will apply the Rule(s) of law to the facts in the case. That is, explain how the specific facts satisfy each element of the applicable Rule(s) of Law. Dont forget to also apply the secondary Rule of Law concerning whether the risk to the customer was forseeable.

In the Conclusion section, state the conclusion you have reached as the judge. That is: what your ruling is. For example, the judges conclusion might be something like: Under the facts and evidence in this case, the defendant did indeed owe a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff and breached that duty causing harm and injury to the plaintiff. Particularly, the risk of a wet floor was forseeable, and the defendant failed to remove or warn of the risk. Therefore, the Plaintiff is awarded damages for his resulting medical bills.

Here is the hypothetical case:

John Doe v. XYZ Groceries, Inc.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division,

Background and Facts:

The evidence presented before the trial court established the following facts.

XYZ Groceries, Inc., (the defendant) owns and operates the XYZ Grocery Store in Anytown, USA. John Doe (the plaintiff) is a customer who shopped regularly at the XYZ Grocery Store.

While Mr. Doe was shopping in the store, there was a spill on aisle 6. When the spill happened, the store was short-handed (not fully staffed) due to some employees being absent. Mr. Smith, the store manager, called on an employee named Jimmy, to clean up the spill. Jimmy was a newly hired 18-year-old bag boy who had not yet received training or supervision on how to handle spill clean-ups.

Jimmy picked up the debris in aisle 6 and wet-mopped the floor in the affected part of the aisle. Jimmy then packed up the mop and bucket and left the area. He did not temporarily close the aisle and did not place cones or other warnings in the affected area. Mr. Smith, the manager, did not check on Jimmys work because Mr. Smith was busy manning the Customer Service desk. As a result, Mr. Smith did not realize that the wet floor in aisle 6 was open to customers and that no warnings were posted.

Mr. Doe, while shopping, turned into aisle 6 to get some orange juice to put into his cart. While walking over the wet floor, his feet slipped out from underneath him. He fell flat on his back, severely injuring his spine and neck.

Mr. Smith called an ambulance, which took Mr. Smith to the hospital. Mr. Smith ended up incurring $25,000 in medical and hospital bills. He also missed two months of work. His lost wages were $5,000 per month.

In the proceedings in the trial court, the trial judge instructed the jury to apply the rule of law concerning torts of negligence, including determining whether the risk was foreseeable or not. The jury found the defendant XYZ Grocery Store, Inc. liable for Mr. Does injuries. The jury awarded him monetary damages of $35,000.

The defendant XYZ Grocery Store, Inc. now appeals to this Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court did not apply the correct rules of law and arguing that the risk in this case, as a matter of law, was not foreseeable.

In the Language of the Court of Appeals

Geiger, J. [Justice]

Following the common law doctrine of stare decisis, the trial court must apply, as the controlling case law precedent, a controlling previous decision of the highest court of the State of New York whose issue and facts are most similar to the case at hand.

The trial judge did, indeed, apply the correct rules of law for such a case, following the precedent of the highest court of New York for a case such as thisnamely, Mary Smith vs. ABC Groceries (1942).

The common law doctrine regarding such cases of negligence, as applied in the Smith case, provides that to establish liability for negligence, the plaintiff must show that:

1. The defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff.
2. The defendant breached that duty of reasonable care.
3. The plaintiff suffered harm or injury.
4. The harm or injury was caused by the defendants breach.

Under the Smith case, store owners invite shoppers and the general public to enter their stores, and they therefor owe a duty of care to such business invitees. The Smith case held the duty of care includes taking reasonable steps to avoid or warn against foreseeable risks to a grocery store customer. Smith also held that an open accessible wet floor in a grocery store aisle is a risk that is reasonably foreseeable by the grocery store. It is clear from the jury findings that the grocery store did not take reasonable and appropriate steps to avoid or warn against the risk of the open wet floor in aisle 6.

The trial also correctly applied the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. This doctrine provides that a corporation, such as XYZ Groceries, Inc., is liable for the acts of its employees.

Therefore, this Court of Appeal finds that the trial court applied the correct rules of law for a case such as this. The judgement of the lower court is hereby affirmed.

____________________________________________________________________

Instructions: Assume you were the trial judge in this case. On each of the following pages, write out your IRAC analysis of this case.

Issue(s):

Rule(s) of Law:

Application of the rule(s) of law to the facts:

Conclusion: