Law Case

ASSIGNMENT 1: Legal Case Analysis

Facts:

The plaintiff, David Harper, was a grocery clerk, he is a customer in Kay T. Peary’s Nighttime Gas service station on a regular basis. On March 7th , he arrived there at 7:15 am during the station’s business hours, after filling his car with gas at the self-serve pump and shopping in the convenience store, he found the air in the front passenger side tire of his car was low, then he pulled his car over to the air hose bracket and filled up the tire with the air hose bracket, when he was on his way to the put the hose back on the bracket, he slipped down on the ice accumulated overnight, consequently, he was injured and sent to the hospital by ambulance with a broken arm and a dislocated shoulder, for this reason, he was curing in the hospital for 10 months, and this led to a 15000 income loss of being delayed his work during his recovery.

Issues:

Analysis:

According to the second tort-liability concept, David Harper, the plaintiff were unintentional injured but were injured by the inaction or of uncleaning the ice of Kay T. Peary,

Duty of care

From the plaintiff’s point of view:

Under the concept of duty of care of negligence, Kay T. Peary owes a duty not to injury to David Harper, and David Harper has a right to safe self-service in the area belong to the gas station until he leaves. Also according to the concept of the occupier liability, David Harper is owed the highest duty of care who enter the lands of the station,

From the defendant’s point of view:

Standard of care

From the plaintiff’s point of view:

According to the concept of foreseeability, Kay T. Peary is a reasonable person in similar circumstances who would have foreseen the injury to David Harper caused by the glaze of ice as a consequence of Kay T. Peary’s inactions.

From the defendant’s point of view:

According to the concept of foreseeability, Kay T. Peary is a unreasonable person in the specific circumstance in the case because his son put...