Friday, October 10, 2014

Ortega v. Kmart case brief summary

Ortega v. Kmart case brief summary

F: verdict for P, and D appealed.


Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor while shopping at D’s store, and was injured. P could not present evidence showing how long the milk had been on the floor. D’s former manager testified that it would be hard for something to be on the floor for more than 15 to 30 minutes. But, the milk could have been on the floor for as long as 2 hours.

I: whether a store owner must exercise ordinary care to make store safe by conducting reasonable inspections of the stores open to customers, and the care required must be commensurate with the risks involved. Failure to do so creates a inference of negligence. Also, the failure to inspect may lead to the constructive notice


R: a store owner must exercise ordinary care to make store safe by conducting reasonable inspections of the stores open to customers, and the care required must be commensurate with the risks involved. Failure to do so creates a inference of negligence. Also, the failure to inspect may lead to the constructive notice


Evidence that was breached?


C: affirmed


Co: constructive knowledge (enlow is not happy with this approach)
Causation approach is more logical.
Constructive knowledge somehow leads to the negligence (this case is bizarre, because no evidence of how long the milke was on the floor)
Wrong case (unjust case) in relation with previous cases

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.