React to the answer below for the following scenario:

Consider the following case and explain why the case should or should not be dismissed:

Jeannie and Jim Khamee own a laundromat in State A. One day, Jim was working on a dryer and had to remove the drum. When he replaced it, he accidentally left a small screwdriver inside. That evening, Grace, a resident in a nearby border city of State B, came in and was in a hurry. She used the dryer on the high-heat setting, hoping to speed up the drying of her clothes, but did not notice the screwdriver in the dryer. When she reached in to pull out her clothing, she wrapped her hand around the screwdriver, suffering third-degree burns on her palm. When she burned her hand, she jumped back and fell, striking her head on the floor. She went home, but a few hours later went to a hospital in State B. She was diagnosed as having a traumatic brain injury.

Grace was a commercial artist, and the injuries prevented her from a full return to work for more than a year. Fifteen months after the accident, Grace was introduced to the laundromat's owners in a social setting. She told them what had happened. They expressed their condolences but offered no more information. They did offer to help with some of the medical bills, because the injuries occurred on their property. They told Grace that they would do what they could, but that they had carried no liability insurance on the property at the time of the accident. A few weeks later, Grace provided them with the remaining unpaid medical bills of $2,500, along with documentation of bills she had paid personally and through health insurance. The amount was more than $37,000. Grace had also lost income and suffered permanent scarring.

Approximately four months after the meeting, the owners sent Grace a check for $2,500, along with a letter stating that they were sorry about the accident and felt it only right to help pay her damages. Grace cashed the check. She wrote to the Khamees and asked whether they intended to pay the other $37,000 in bills. They responded that they would like to help but needed time to get the money together. Despite subsequent letters from Grace, she heard no more from them. Grace sought legal counsel approximately one month after the two-year statute of limitations in State A (the site of the laundromat) had expired. An investigation discovered that the laundromat had been closed for equipment repairs and cleaning of all units on the day of the accident until shortly before Grace arrived.

The case was brought against Jim and Jeannie Khamee in State B, where the statute of limitations was three years. In the time since the accident, though, Grace had moved to State A. The Khamees' attorney responded with claims that the statute of limitations had run in the state where the case occurred and where Grace now resided (State A), and further that no such person as "Jim" Khamee owned the laundromat. Grace's attorney discovered that the owner's real given name was Mozembiqueno; he only went by the more American name of "Jim" for convenience. However, only legal documents reflected this, and at all other times he was known publicly as Jim Khamee.

Answer: "The case brought against Jim and Jeannie Khamee should be dismissed. The suit should have been filed in the state where the incident occurred, State A. Since the statute of limitations had run out in State A, Grace would have been unable to file suit, so it seems the only reason the suit was filed in State B was because Grace or her attorney was forum shopping, as the textbook describes. Khamees' attorney made a shoddy attempt to dismiss the case by bringing up that there was no such person as "Jim" Khamee. Because he was publicly known as "Jim" and Mozembiqueno was only reflected in legal documents, it is likely that Grace's attorney could have simply requested to have the name corrected, and the case would proceed as normal. I think Khamees' attorney could have had the case dismissed according to the statute of limitations without bringing up the subject of the defendant's legal name."

-What do you think of this answer?

-which part would you agree or disagree?

-what are the strong and weak points in this answer?