This project focuses on legal research, legal analysis, and application of relevant law and facts.

Background:

Attorney Collins has received the complaint in Montgomery County (Maryland). He is too busy with other matters to dissect it now but has asked you to provide him a memorandum with the following information:

1. Are there any counts of the complaint that could be subject to a Motion to Dismiss?
2. What are they and what would the basis be for dismissal?
3. What if any defenses could be raised in an answer by Robbie, the Latchkeys or Frank's Flowers.

Your memorandum should begin with a brief summary of the assignment, then reference each element of the complaint by number.

COMPLAINT

Mini and Max Cooper, Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, ATTORNEY and FIRM, sue Robert Robertson, (hereinafter "Robertson"), Frank's Flowers, Inc. (hereinafter "Franks") and Lorna and Lawrence Latchkey (hereinafter "the Latchkeys") Defendants, and state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs, Mini and Max Cooper were over the age of eighteen (18) years and resided in Montgomery County, Maryland.
2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Robert Robertson was over the age of eighteen (18), and was employed in and resided in Montgomery County, Maryland.
3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Frank's Flowers, Inc. was a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, registered to do business in Maryland and operated a flower shop in Montgomery County, Maryland.
4. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Lorna and Lawrence Latchkey were over the age of eighteen (18) and resided in Montgomery County, Maryland.
5. The cause of action which forms the basis of the complaint occurred in Montgomery County, Maryland.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 6-102(a), 6-103(b) (1)-(5).
7. This Court has venue over the matter pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 6-102(a), 6-202(8).

COUNT 1

Negligence (Robertson)

1. The allegations of Paragraphs 1-7 of this Complaint are incorporated herein as though repeated in full.
2. On DATE, at approximately TIME, Plaintiff Mini Cooper was lawfully and carefully operating her motor vehicle in a northerly direction on Rte. 29.
3. Plaintiff Mini Cooper was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Rte. 29 and C.
4. Defendant was operating a van with the logo "Frank's Flowers" on the sides and back and traveling in a northerly direction on Rte. 29.
5. Defendant operated the van in a negligent and careless manner by traveling over the speed limit and under the influence of alcohol without stopping at the red light at the intersection of Rte. 29 and C. and then colliding with Cooper's vehicle, causing extensive damage and injury to the Coopers and the vehicle.
6. Plaintiffs were taken by ambulance to Shady Grove Hospital and were treated for serious head, chest and leg injuries.
7. Defendant had a duty to operate the vehicle he was driving in a proper fashion and breached this duty of care by failing to operate the vehicle in a safe and proper manner.
8. Defendant's negligence proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious injuries, great mental anguish, loss of work, wages and property damage. All such injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant, without any negligence by Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Robertson in an amount over seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

COUNT II

Negligent Entrustment (Frank's Flowers, Inc.)

1. The allegations set out in Paragraphs 1-15 of this Complaint are incorporated herein as if repeated in full.
2. On or about DATE, Defendant Frank's hired Defendant Robertson as a delivery truck driver. Defendant Frank's was aware that Defendant Roberson had just turned eighteen at the time he was hired and was not an experienced driver.
3. Defendant Frank's provided a van to Defendant Robertson to deliver flowers and floral arrangements to customers of Frank's Flowers.
4. Defendant Franks knew or should have known that Defendant Robertson's youth and inexperience involved the risk of physical harm to others. Defendant Franks was negligent in entrusting the van to Defendant Roberston.
5. Plaintiffs, as members of the public who used the public highways were members of the foreseeable class of persons who were at risk of suffering physical harm from Defendant Robertson operation of Defendant Frank's vehicle.
6. Defendant Franks negligence in entrusting the van to Defendant Robertson concurrently and proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiff.
7. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Franks in an amount over seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).

COUNT III

Negligence (Latchkeys)

1. The allegations set out in Paragraphs 1-22 of this Complaint are incorporated herein as if repeated in full.
2. On DATE, Defendants Latchkeys hosted a party for their children and other members of the Montgomery High School graduating class at their home.
3. Defendants Latchkeys furnished alcohol to the attendees at the party, including Defendant Robertson. Defendants Latchkeys were aware that the party attendees were under the age of twenty-one (21). Their actions were in violation of Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law 10-117.
4. Defendants Latchkeys knew or should have known that Defendant Robertson drove to the party and left the party in a vehicle that he was operating after consuming alcohol that they had furnished to him, which involved a risk of physical injury to others.
5. Plaintiffs, as members of the public who used the public highways were members of the foreseeable class of persons who were at risk of suffering physical harm from Defendant Robertson operation of the vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
6. Defendant Latchkeys had a duty to observe the laws regarding furnishing alcohol to minors. They acted negligently in failing to adhere to the law when serving alcohol to minors at their home and their negligence proximately caused the injuries to Plaintiffs and the damage to their vehicles.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Franks in an amount over seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00).