Kaplan University Intro. to Legal Research Unit 6

PA: 201 Intro. To Legal Research

Unit six assignment

William Young

1. Sonja A. Soehnel, Liability of operator of store, office, or similar place of business to invitee slipping on spilled liquid or semiliquid substance, 26 A.L.R.4th 481 (1983).

This is a great law review article for the case at hand. It discusses the ways in which a plaintiff can be held at fault for a slip and fall accident, as well as what is deemed proper precautions by the defendant. As the plaintiff in our case did not witness the spill occur and had no knowledge of it, her comparative fault becomes a moot point. Furthermore, if this is a spill that has been deemed repeatable it can increases the case against the defendant. It is also discussed that the duty owed by the defendant is very high as most businesses understand and accept that spills are a common incident that can be rectified very easily.

2. Stephen D. Sugarman , ASSUMPTION OF RISK, 31 Val. U. L. Rev. 833. (1997).

Assumption of risk is elaborated on in this article. In our case, the defendant will claim assumption of risk as their defense. With assumption of risk, this is when the negligence of a party is nullified as they have acted reasonably in all accounts. Specifically, this would mean that they are doing thorough and detailed examinations of the floor areas repeatedly and constantly as to make a slip and fall case seem so outside their control that they cannot be held at fault. What is also shown, however, is that the time taken to identify a spill and having an able bodied employee handle it is one of the major downfalls to a defendant’s defense.

3. David C. Sobelsohn, COMPARING FAULT, 60 Ind. L.J. 413 (1985).

This article describes how the judge or jury is supposed to view and apply comparative fault. This is of great importance as it shows what the important elements are that the court will be looking for in determining fault. Mostly, there is the view of drifting from the societal norm. As such, the...