Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.


Analyze Ms . Tom 's Case (Your Name (Your University ) 2007 Analyze Ms . Tom 's Case Tom v . Kresge Co , Inc , 633 P .

Analyze Ms . Tom 's Case (Your Name (Your University )2007 Analyze Ms . Tom 's Case Tom v . S .S . Kresge Co , Inc , 633 P .2d 439 Kresge store sold soft drinks inside and allowed the customers to walk around shopping with their drinks . Mae Tom , one of the customers slipped and fell on a clear substance on the floor of the store . She sought to recover damages for the injuries she sustained by reason of the fall .Negligence is one of the types of tort . It is understood to mean as a conduct that falls short of the standards prescribed by law to be observed by a reasonably prudent person given the set of circumstances (West 's Encyclopedia of American Law , 1998 . In other words , negligence involved the failure to observe due care and diligence thereby causing injury to another .In a negligence case , the plaintiff must prove the following elements to be entitled recovery of damages , i .e . the act or omission of the defendant the duty of the defendant towards the plaintiff breach of such duty by the defendant causation and , the injury caused to the plaintiff (West 's Encyclopedia of American Law , 1998 .In the instant case , Kresge failed to maintain the premises of the store in a reasonably safe condition for its customers . As enunciated by the Court in the case of Rawls v Hochschild , Kohn , and Co , Inc , the customer has the right to assume that the proprietor of the store will observe reasonable diligence and care in ensuring the premises of the store to be safe and if he discovers that it is unsafe , he would do everything in his power to make it safe or at least give fair warning of the harmful condition [ (1955 ) 207 Md . 113] . Moreover , there is the duty on the part of Kresge , to inspect and take precautionary measures to prevent the possible but foreseeable harm or danger [Tennant v . Shoppers Food Warehouse MD Corp (1996 )] .Ordinarily , the plaintiff customer has the burden thereafter to prove that ``the proprietor created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of its existence ' prior to the injury ' as was held by the court in the case of Lexington Mkt . Auth . v .Zappala . [33 Md . 444 , 446 (1964 )] . In a recent case , Rehn v . Westfield Am , [153 Md . App . 586 , 593 (2003 )] , the court ruled that it was necessary to prove the existence of the dangerous condition as well as the fact that this was actually or constructively known to the proprietor who has sufficient time from such knowledge to remove or warn the plaintiff thereof . However , actual or constructive notice in the instant case need not be proved anymore considering that the ``principle of mode of operation ' has been adopted by the courts in numerous states . Under the mode-of-operation principle , the plaintiff no longer needs to show that the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of the danger or harm , it being sufficient that from...

Show more
Ask a Question