A question concerning Civil and Private Law?

Question concerning Business Law?

• Kim went to Ling's Market to pick up a few items for dinner. It was a rainy, windy day, and the wind had blown water through the door of Ling's Market each time the door opened. As Kim entered through the door, she slipped and fell in the approximately one half inch of rainwater that had accumulated on the floor. The manager knew of the weather conditions but had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. Kim injured her back as a result of the fall and sued Ling's for damages. Can Ling's be held liable for negligence in this situation? Discuss

• Answer:

  5 elements of negligence: Duty - did the store owner have a duty to Kim? Yes, b/c Kim is a lawful entrant/invitee, Ling's has a duty of reasonable care to Kim. Breach - Did Ling breach its duty? Yes, b/c Ling was aware of the weather conditions and failed to warn of hazard, or clean it up. This is an easy task, compared with the high likelihood that somebody could fall and be injured. (BPL analysis) Legally Cognizable Harm - Yes, her back injury is recognized as a legally cognizable harm Cause in Fact - "But-for" Ling's failure to clean up the water and/or warn customers, Kim would not have been injured. Proximate Cause/Scope of the Risk - The harm that Kim suffered was of the same type that Ling negligently created. Conclusion - Kim has a strong case for negligence. Ling can argue that Kim was comparatively negligent in that the puddle of water was an open an obvious danger. Kim has a "duty" of "reasonable" care to herself, and thus her lack of attention to where she was walking was not reasonable, and so she breached her duty of reasonable care to herself. While such an argument will not defeat her negligence claim against Lings, it is possible that a jury could find her comparatively negligent in such a way as to reduce her damages award.