Case Study Research Essay

Case One Barsz v. exclusive Shapiro, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 600 N.E.2d 151 (1992) Fact Marjorie Barsz brought negligence work against Shapiros deli Cafeteria to recover for person-to-person injuries sustained when she slipped and fell, breaking her right ankle and left knee cap. Her husband, Carl Barsz brought action against the restaurant for loss of consortium with his wife due to Mrs. Barszs injuries. The traffic circle Court of Shelby County granted succinct judgment for the restaurant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, First dominion held that honest-to-god issues of material items existed and reversed the unofficial judgment. Issue Was Shapiros Delicatessen Cafeteria negligent in identifying and remedying the stop of the fundament in the restaurant, causing Marjorie Barszs accident? Rule GOLBA v. KOHLS DEPT. STORE, INC. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992)Analysis To avoid summary judgment, Marjorie Barsz had to show that there was a defective c ondition in the floor of the restaurant which caused her slip and attend, and that the restaurant unreasonably failed to discover and remedy the gaga condition. Genuine material facts existed which precluded summary judgment for the restaurant. Summary judgment is broadly speaking inappropriate in negligence cases. Trial Procedure Rule 56(C) coating A restaurant cannot be held strictly liable for a fall that occurred before having a reasonable chance to remove a opposed substance from its floor restaurant as not the absolute security of customer safety. However, summary judgment cannot be granted when a genuine material fact exists.Case Two Golba v. Kohls Dept. Store, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992) Facts complainant Stella Golba brought negligence action against defendant Kohls incision Store stemming from a slip and fall accident. Ms. Golba stepped on a small object on a glossy floor, causing her to trip and fall. The floor had only been sweep erstwhile on the mor ning of the accident. The Circuit Court of Starke County granted the blood lines motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third soil held that material issues of fact existed and reversed the summary judgment. Issue Was Kohls Department Store negligent in maintaining their floors in a safe condition for patrons? Rule BURRELL v. MEADS Ind. 569 N.E.2d 637 (1991)Analysis A sphere owner is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he knows or exercising reasonable safeguard would discover the condition, and should realize that it is an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, and should expect that they depart not realize the danger, or will not protect themselves against it, and fails to practice session reasonable look at to protect them against the danger. Normally, determining whether the host has exercised reasonable business organization to make their premises sa fe for an invitee is a question of fact for a jury. Conclusion Sweeping of a floor only once in the morning does not constitute exercise of reasonable care to prevent injury to customers from objects left in the floor. The issue of fact as to whether the store had notice of the object in the floor precluded a summary judgment.