Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Legal Analysis of a Slip-and-fall Case. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
An 11 page extensive analysis of a hypothetical slip-and-fall lawsuit. In this scenario, Tom Hansen slipped and fell while shopping at the Apex Supermarket, incurring a severe hip injury. Mr. Hansen’s accident was due to a spill of an oily liquid on the floor, which created a hazard. Mr. Hansen seeks legal counsel as to whether to pursue a lawsuit against Apex Supermarket in order to receive monetary damages for his injury, but he wishes assurance as to whether or not his case would actually receive a jury trial, or be dismissed due to a summary judgment. The writer cites 3 cases in arguing that Mr. Hansen should not pursue his suit. No bibliography is offered.
Page Count:
11 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhansen.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
to a spill of an oily liquid on the floor, which created a hazard. Mr. Hansen seeks legal counsel as to whether to pursue a lawsuit against Apex Supermarket in
order to receive monetary damages for his injury, but he wishes assurance as to whether or not his case would actually receive a jury trial, or be dismissed due to
a summary judgment. Step 1 Analysis of Mr. Hansens accident reveals that if he should pursue a lawsuit against Apex Supermarket, this case will be unable to overcome a
summary judgment due to the reasons listed below. Step 2 The principal rule that is applicable and supportive of this conclusion is that the plaintiff in a "slip-and-fall" case must
be able to show that the defendant created the condition or circumstances that resulted in the accident, or that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazard (Giuffrido
v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co. [2001]). Step 3 Examination of case precedent indicates the legal context that supports this rule and its subsidiary rules. For example, in
the case of Giuffrida v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Company, et al (2001). the Supreme Court of New York granted the motion by the defendant, Metro North, to dismiss the
complaint and denied the plaintiffs cross-motion for leave to reargue. In this case, there were multiple defendants, one of which was the Azor Bake Shop. The plaintiff alleged that she
slipped and fell in the Graybar Passage of Grand Central Station, within the vicinity of Zaros Bread Basket, which is owned and operated by Azor Bake Shop. The Metro
North Police report on this occurrence indicates that there was a stain on the floor in the area, but that it did not appear to be wet at the time
...