Unit #3: (Kaplan University)

Unit 3: Case Law – “FIRAC”

Samantha Smith v. Indiana Grocery Store …….

Facts: Samantha slipped on shampoo that had spilled on the floor of an Indiana grocery store.

Issue: Samantha’s fall caused her serious injuries which included a broken hip; she spent the one night in the hospital. Per Doctor’s advice Samantha will require surgery and possible months of physical rehabilitation and at present it cannot be determine if she will suffer permanent disability.

Rule: Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2 (West 2011)

Ind. App., 453 N.E.2d 1196, 1198 (1983)

Analysis: The Grocery store maintains that there were no prior customers or complaints that came in about any spills on their floor(s). Because a log is keep, upon careful observation, it was noted that a check was made at about 12:45; forty-five minutes prior to Samantha’s slip and fall accident. The employee in charge of that isle is an older gentleman who wears glasses. We need to subvert the employee and find out if he actually walked his route and inspected the floor like he was supposed to, or if he simply wrote the report, or just stood at another end of the aisle and visually inspected then wrote his findings.

Conclusion: Even if Samantha has to bare some of the fault for the accident, the jury if any must find the defendant to be partially at fault also. They must decide what percentage of the damage should go to each party. If both parties are at fault at fifty-percent, then they will find in favor of Samantha but if you multiply the awarded amount by fifty-percent then that’s what the defendant must pay Samantha; But, only but if the defendant is found only 49% at fault or less Samantha is then awarded nothing, nada.

Conclusion II: As per case law Lloyd v. TG & Y Stores Co., 556 So.2d.629, 635 (La.Ct.App.1990) in which it was held that “A customer has the duty to see and avoid obvious hazards.” However, we will argue that a clear gel shampoo on a shiny waxed floor is not an...