Question

ch of the following is not a recognized defense to a lawsuit for injuries 2based on the tort theory of Negligence? Implied Warranty a. b. Assumption of the Risk c. Superseding Cause d. Comparative Negligence 26 & 27: Approximately one page answer for each of the following 2 Essay questions. 26. (10 Pts.) Peter Griffin visited a Super-Mart store. While waddling down a busy isle near the food court, Peter slipped and fell, when he stepped in some macaroni & cheese, which came from the food court. Peter sued Super-Mart for his injuries. At trial Peter testified that the macaroni appeared "to have a lot of dirt and footprints on it", suggesting that the spilled macaroni had been on the floor for some time. What duty does a business have to protect its customers from dangerous conditions? Should Super-Mart be liable to Peter? Why or why not? You may want to look at your notes of our class discussion of Martin v Wal-Mart Please explain and discuss the concept of Proximate Cause, in a Negligence case. It may be helpful to review the case of Palzgraff v Long Island Railroad, which we discussed in class. 27. (10 Pts.)

Answer 1

25. Answer is Assumption of the risk, because it may or may not happen in the future, we can not defense to a lawsuit based on assumptions

26. To run any kind of business, customers are very important and many businesses believe that customers are most valuable in the world, so it is primary duty of a business to protect its customers.

To protect customers from dangerous conditions, business organisations should concentrate quality of products and services. Every second, it should be alert to avoid dangerous situations, if not it will face many problems. By employing well talented man power, it should provide best services to customers.

27. Proximate cause means primary cause of injury and courts consider it to deal a case. In this case, plaintiff harmed by long Island railroad employees and it was not intentionally and not based on negligence but happened unfortunately but court consider primary cause for injury and plaintiff obtained by $ 6, 000 which the railroad appealed