I need a separate case brief for both of these questions please, they are both in the same chapter, the Issue, Rule, Analysis, and conclusion written

First Question:

Ludmila Hresil and her niece were shopping at a sears retail store. There were few shoppers in the store at the time. Hresil spent about ten minutes in the store's women's department, where she observed no other shoppers. After Hresil's niece completed a purchase in another Part of the store, the two women began to walk through the women's department. Hresil, who was pushing a shopping cart, suddenly lost her balance and struggled to avoid a fall. As she did so, her right leg struck the shopping cart and began to swell. Hresil observed a "gob" on the floor where she had slipped. Later, a Sears'semployeesaid that "it looked like someone spat on the floor, like it was phlegm." Under the reasonable person standard, did Sears breach a duty to Hresil by not cleaning up the gob? HINT: Assume that Hresil could prove that the gob was on the floor only for ten minutes she spent in the women's department.

Second Question:

LuAnn Plonski alleged that after shopping at a Kroger Co. grocery store in Indianapolis, Indiana during afternoon hours, she proceeded to the store's parking lot (where her car was parked), placed her purse in the shopping cart she was using, opened the trunk of her car, and began loading her groceries into the trunk. She noticed that a man was walking toward her. He did not appear to be a Kroger employee (and in fact was not a Kroger employee). The man began running toward Plonski, who grabbed her purse and tried to run away but did not succeed. The man grabbed Plonski and her purse. He then picked her up, threw her in the trunk of the car, and began slamming the trunk lid on her legs. When the man looked away, Plonski jumped out of the trunk and ran into the Kroger store. The man then left the scene with Plonski's purse. In an effort to collect damages for her inju ries and the loss of her purse, Plonski filed a negligence lawsuit against Kroger in an Indiana court. After completion of discovery in the case, Kroger moved for summary judgment. Kroger argued that it owed no duty to Plonski and that even if it did owe a duty, there was no breach. In connection with its motion, Kroger provided affidavits from its risk manager and safety manager. Those affidavits asserted that the Kroger store in whose parking lot the incident occurred is located in a part of the city that has a reputation for low levels of criminal activity and that in the two-year period before the incident at issue, there had been only one report of criminal activity occurring on the store's premises. Plonski responded to Kroger's motion by citing her deposition testimony and other evidence. The trial court denied Kroger's summary judgment request, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Kroger appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana. How did that court rule on whether Kroger owed a duty to Plonski and on whether Kroger was entitled to summary judgment