Legal Memorandum Assignment Case of P. Parker, Minor; Negligence OVERVIEW OF ASSIGNMENT: Students are expected to write a legal memorandum ("Memo"). The subject of the Memo as well as more detailed instructions are explained on the following pages. In short, students are asked to draft a Memo that helps me - as Senior Partner of Simon & Simon Law Firm - understand and analyze whether or not P. Parker has a claim against Oscorp Industries for negligence, and what to expect if suit is filed. The Memo should be at least 5 pages in length, double spaced, usingTimesNewRomansfont. TheMemoshouldalsoincludeareferencepage(whichdoesnot count towards your 5-page minimum requirement). The Facts section of your Memo should account for no more than 1 page of your Memo. The Analysis section of your Memo should include the analysis (and citation) of at least 5 cases. When you draw upon the caselaw I have provided to you (see D2L; Table of Contents; Memo Assignment; Cases (Research for Memo Assignment)) or any other type of reliable authority you find in your research, you must cite them in your Memo. You may use either Chicago, MLA or APA citation method. (Note: these citations methods are not what is normally used for a legal memo. However, I don't expect you to learn a legal citation method for this course). I have provided sufficient research for you to write the Memo. However, you are welcome to do additional research. Your textbook can be a great resource. Furthermore, FindLaw is a good site, generally. MEMORANDUM -FACT SITUATION FROM THE DESK OF M. SIMON, J.D. SENIOR PARTNER FOR SIMON & SIMON LAW FIRM 20 INGRAM STREET, FOREST HILLS, MARVEL To: 305 Business Law - Associate Attorney From: M. Simon, Senior Partner Date: August23,2021 Re: Case of P. Parker, Minor; Negligence As the newly hired associate attorney for Simon & Simon Law Firm, your first assignment will be to write a legal memorandum that helps me understand and analyze whether or not P. Parker has a claim against Oscorp Industries for negligence, and what to expect if suit is filed. In your memorandum, please be sure to address any anticipated defenses based upon the State's comparative fault statute, which reads as follows. ELECTED STATUTES OF THE STATE OF MARVEL MARVEL STATUTES ANNOTATED TITLE XLV. TORTS CHAPTER 768. NEGLIGENCE PART II. DAMAGES 768.81. Comparative fault (1) Definition.--As used in this section, "economic damages" means past lost income and future lost income reduced to present value; medical and funeral expenses; lost support and services; replacement value of lost personal property; loss of appraised fair market value of real property; costs of construction repairs, including labor, overhead, and profit; and any other economic loss which would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action. (2) Effect of contributory fault.--In an action to which this section applies, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as economic and noneconomicdamagesforaninjuryattributabletotheclaimant'scontributory fault but does not bar recovery. (3) Apportionment of damages.--In cases to which this section applies, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability; provided that with respect to any party whose percentage of fault equals or exceeds that of a particular claimant, the court shall enter judgment with respect to economic damages against that party on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability. (4) Applicability.--This section applies to negligence cases. For purposes of this section, "negligence cases" includes, but is not limited to, civil actions for damages based upon theories of negligence, strict liability, products liability, professional malpractice whether couched in terms of contract or tort, or breach of warranty and like theories. In determining whether a case falls within the term "negligence cases," the court shall look to the substance of the action and not the conclusory terms used by the parties. When analyzing the legal issues presented, please also consider the following: (1) Assume the truth of any facts included in my attached Findings of Fact. (2) However, do not assume that all facts in the Findings of Fact are legally relevant. Obviously, if any facts are irrelevant, do not include them in the Facts section of your memorandum. (3) Please summarize the legally relevant facts in your own words. Do not quote my writing; however, you can feel free to repeat quotes attributed to specific parties. (4) Your Facts section should be no more than 1 page in length! (5) I expect you to analyze (and cite) at least 5 cases in the Analysis section of your memo. (6) If you need to know additional facts or require any clarification, please email me. (7) Stay objective. I am not asking you to serve as an advocate for either side. (8) For purposes of this memorandum, the governing law and jurisdiction is the fictional state of Marvel. There is not any binding case law on this issue in the state of Marvel. As a result, all of the case law that you will review and cite in your memo will be persuasive authority only. If you choose to do additional research beyond the cases I have provided to you, do not look to any court outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Furthermore, do not cite any unpublished cases or any decisions that have been overturned or no longer constitute good law. Lastly, be very careful and selective if you decide to cite to any secondary sources. (9) For purposes of this memorandum, the lawsuit is only against Oscorp Industries, owner of the campground. You do not need to consider any claims against other parties, such as the manufacturer of the slide and/or pool. I'd like a complete legal memorandum with the Questions(s) Presented, Brief Answers, a Summary of the Facts (which are legally relevant), a Discussion section, and a Conclusion.

Case of P. Parker, Minor; Negligence FINDINGS OF FACTS: On the afternoon of August 10, 2021, Peter B. Parker, then age 14, was swimming with two of his best friends, Mary J. Watson and Flash Thompson at a pool located in a campground, known as the "Os-Asis" owned by Oscorp Industries. Peter, Mary, and Flash's families were all staying at the campground for the weekend. This was the first time any of them had visited this particular campground. While their families decided to go on an afternoon hike, Peter, Mary, and Flash decided to go swimming instead. Eventually, Peter and Flash began jumping and diving off the platform of a seven-foot plastic slide, which was located at the deepest end of the pool, where the water level was from five to five-and-a-half feet deep. There was no signage posted at the deep end of the pool area that indicated diving was not allowed. However, there was a sign near the shallow end of the pool, at the pool's entrance, that said "NO DIVING." J. Jonah Jameson, the resident manager of the campground, had recently replaced the slide after it had been in storage for approximately two years. The slide was originally supplied with the pool when it was installed at the campground approximately 10 years ago. J. Jameson temporarily removed the slide from the pool for a couple reasons. First, at the time, frequent, high-profile guests of the campground were complaining that due to the slide, the pool was being monopolized by disorderly children. Second, in July 2019, a child, age 4, slipped on the slide's platform and fell, causing him to break his arm and suffer a concussion. As of August 10, 2021, the slide had only been back in the campground's pool for one week. The campground's pool did not have a lifeguard on duty. However, there was a sign located in the pool area that read, "NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY." In previous years, the campground had a lifeguard on duty during pool hours. However, due to budget constraints, the campground elected not to hire lifeguards for the 2021 camping season. There is no state statute that requires a lifeguard to be on duty. Peter initially jumped off the platform at the top of the slide. He, thereafter, successfully executed two dives into the pool. However, in attempting a third dive, Peter's feet slipped as he pushed off the slide's platform. Because of this, he inadvertently propelled himself into the pool at an acute vertical angle. His head struck the bottom of the pool, instantly breaking his neck. Peter is now a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the chest down. Peter was an "average" swimmer, having had two or three years of swimming lessons. He had also had prior diving experience and had even dived off similar slides before at other campgrounds. He knew the approximate depth of the water and height of the slide platform. Having successfully negotiated two dives, Peter knew that he had to enter the water on a somewhat horizontal plane to avoid hitting the bottom of the pool. In response to the question of whether a vertical dive could cause him to hit bottom, Peter admitted, "[y]es, that dive, I knew if I went in completely wrong, I would get hurt, yes." Peter claims that he was not aware of how slippery the plastic surface of the slide's platform was. In response to a question as to what he slipped on, Peter stated, "[o]n the top of the slide, I just slipped. My feet slipped and I didn't get a good push off." An expert witness consulted on the design of pool slides has stated that the smooth fiberglass surface of the typical pool slide is desirable because of the ease of maintenance of a smooth surface, which will attract less dirt and residue. Also, the primary use of the slide is to sit on the slide and then push off. The slippery surface facilitates sliding down in one smooth motion. However, the expert also noted that some designers suggested the use of a non-slip surface (similar to what is used on stairs or other surfaces) at the top of the slide, where the swimmer climbs from the ladder onto the slide. The disadvantage is that the rough surface would potentially scratch the skin of the swimmer or the nylon bathing suits that most swimmers wear. You have been asked by Peter's guardian ad litem whether Peter can recover compensation against Oscorp Industries, the owner of the resort, for his injuries. Please prepare a memo containing your analysis.