Karalee Alaine Williams, on nine different occasions over a period of 27 hours, purchased at least 60 cans of aerosol dust remover from a Baytown, Texas Walmart. Within a week of her purchases, she died from the effects of inhaling dust remover.

Williams' mother sued Walmart claiming, among other things, Walmart was negligent in repeatedly selling aerosol dust remover cans to her daughter.

In your initial post, address the following:

1. Discuss whether the facts of the case meet the requirements of a successful negligence claim (review pp. 294-295 in your textbook).
2. What defenses could Walmart raise in this case? Explain.
3. Should Walmart have refused service to Williams when it was obvious she was mentally unstable? Are there instances where a business has a duty to deny service to someone based on their behavior? Elaborate and explain.

identify the requirements of a successful negligence claim. To stablith a rucossful negligence claim the plaintif mast meet adch of the folloning reztireneat: - Duty. The plaintiff mast ettablith that the defendant owed a kury of due care to the plairtifl. In gesera, the standard appsiad is that of the fotitious reasonable man or woman. That a kenonable zomon acts prudenth; seesibly, and responsibly. The standard of teasonableass depends on the circumstances of tha siturion. An Illincis Starbucks, for example, did not have a lagal dury to protect Martus, a turbegearold accompaniod b; his parents, who lost a feger whea playtes on hery, cementbast stanchices and connecting ropes uzed to zaide customert. In 2018, the fiderat 7th Circuit Court cf Appeals reancned that the presence of the parents lifted from Starbucks any duty that it may have had, even though the atore manger had advisad upper managers that tha stanchions should be firmly affed to the floor. The parents bore the dury to protect Marcus from obrious danger.' - Breach of duty. The plaintif muat demonstrate that the defendant kceached the duty of due care by engaging in conduct that did not ocaform to the reasceable perten standard. Beach of the daty of due care ray result from cither the commitsica of a carclest act or the cmission of a reasionable, prudeat act. Would a reascrable man or woman divcharge a frearm in a public park? Would a reasonable person foresee that failurs to illuminate ona's front entry ateps might lead to a broben bone when the pizza is dalivered? More formally, we might thini ct seascnable behasice as decision mabing that weight the cotts and becales of acting or nct acting. - Causation pedestrian would not have been struck dova in the crosswall. 5. Proximate cause. The plaintif also must establish that the defeedant's actions mere the phaximatr cense of the iningy. As a matter of policy, is the defendint's conduct suffeleatly connsctad to the plaintiff injury as to jurtify impoting lablity? Oe is the conduct so remote and so uspestictable that we could not reasorably enpect the defendiast to foreses at and pectect azziest in? Many injuriet arise from a series of events-some of them wildy improbable. Did tha deftadant's nagligence lead to the plaintifits harm, or did scme interveniog act break the causal link between the defendant's negligence and tha harm? For example, a ccemmunity's allegedly aeglbent mainenance ferulted in a blocked road, forcing the plaletiff driver to detcur, whalle on the derour rocte, the plaintiffs vehicle was struck by a plane that fell from the aly witan attempting to land at a nearby airport. Was the community't negligence the proximate cause of the plaintis's injury? 19 - Injury. The plaintiff must have sustained injury, and due to problems of proof, that iajury often must be phrzical. [For a tort laur [brary, see http/;injury findlaw.com/ tort-and-personal-injuriea btml]. Blame Apple for Distracted Driver Accidents? The Modisete funily car was stoppad on W3S in Teras because of polioe activity ahead Wilhelm crashed inzo tha Modisectes' cur, shercly injuring tach family member and rubeoquetty rusulting in the doath of Moriah Modisotte, ago fve. Wilhelm": iPhost 6 FaceTeme application was activated at the time of the accideen. Apple had previously patented loclout techology to block the wse of certain Phons functions while the user is driving. FaseTime was tactory iestalled, and it was not an opticnal application. The Modinetes sued Apple tor its felure to design and manutacture its phoses so drivers would not be able to une Facefiene when driving. The Modisetes introtuced tudies dernonstrating the addictive and compulsive nature of mobile phcne tase. Questions 1. Based on the above requirements for any negligence claim, how would you rule on the Modivette negligence claim? Explain. 2. Return to the Irump Indiana, Inc., text box. How would you rule on Merrill's claim? Explain. this instance, to a bar fight