Mock Memo-Firac

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 180
  • Published : May 16, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
James, Leslie, & Kale, LP
Memo
To:Supervising Attorney
From:Amber Blanton
Date:5/16/2012
Re:Samantha Smith
Fact: Samantha Smith slipped and fell on spilled shampoo in the aisle at the grocery store in question. After we filed our complaint with the courts; the store alleges that Ms. Smith had a duty to avoid the spillage, but was too distracted by her son to notice. The store feels that Ms. Smith is just as much responsible as they are. Issue: Is it equal responsibility on both parties as involved? Rule: (a) In an action based on fault that is brought against: (1) one (1) defendant; or (2) two (2) or more defendants who may be treated as a single party; the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant's contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant's damages.(b) In an action based on fault that is brought against two (2) or more defendants, the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant's contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant's damages. 34 West Ann. Code § 6.2.51 ( Analysis: Samantha Smith slipped and fell at the grocery store on spilled shampoo; she does have the possibility of having so sort of comparative fault because the store did do their check at the time they were supposed to and she fell 30 minutes before the next aisle check. Conclusion: Ms. Smith could very well have some sort of comparative fault if the store could prove that she was distracted enough by her child that she was unable to notice the spillage.
tracking img