Chapter 12 Web Assignment
Chapter 12 Web Assignment
Nadia Almosawi
June 23, 2015
1. Speaking based on my opinion, Maria should not be compensated for anything because she was not following the rules and thinking that because she is the customer she has the rights. But legally speaking Kowalski's as a business owner and operator owes a duty of care to their patrons, and that duty is to provide a safe area. If they fail to do so, they will be liable for negligence. Kowalskis has posted the "Employee's Only No Admittance" sign, and their liability to customers does not extend to areas reserved for employee use. Further, Vinny tells Maria that she should not enter the area. Finally, he not only warns Maria that the area is extremely dangerous, but also orders her to leave. So Maria’s duty was to listen to the employer and not enter the stock room.
2. Maria specifically requested that Vinny not touch her, and he does, he has committed the tort of Battery. If Maria's ankle is injured, the question of fact is: Did the injury result from the fall or from Vinny's battery or both? Maria assumed the risk of injury from the conditions in the storeroom, but not from Vinny's battery. For her damages for lost wages, Maria cannot claim damages for any current wages, because she is unemployed; and it may be difficult to establish that she would have been hired as an aerobics instructor even if the injury had not occurred.
3. You would argue that the injury resulted more from Vinny's battery than from the initial accident. You could point out, as mentioned above, that although Maria had assumed the risk of being injured by dangerous conditions in the stockroom, she had not assumed the risk of being injured by an employee’s battery. At a minimum, you could allege that Vinny's battery exacerbated the injury.
Nadia Almosawi
June 23, 2015
1. Speaking based on my opinion, Maria should not be compensated for anything because she was not following the rules and thinking that because she is the customer she has the rights. But legally speaking Kowalski's as a business owner and operator owes a duty of care to their patrons, and that duty is to provide a safe area. If they fail to do so, they will be liable for negligence. Kowalskis has posted the "Employee's Only No Admittance" sign, and their liability to customers does not extend to areas reserved for employee use. Further, Vinny tells Maria that she should not enter the area. Finally, he not only warns Maria that the area is extremely dangerous, but also orders her to leave. So Maria’s duty was to listen to the employer and not enter the stock room.
2. Maria specifically requested that Vinny not touch her, and he does, he has committed the tort of Battery. If Maria's ankle is injured, the question of fact is: Did the injury result from the fall or from Vinny's battery or both? Maria assumed the risk of injury from the conditions in the storeroom, but not from Vinny's battery. For her damages for lost wages, Maria cannot claim damages for any current wages, because she is unemployed; and it may be difficult to establish that she would have been hired as an aerobics instructor even if the injury had not occurred.
3. You would argue that the injury resulted more from Vinny's battery than from the initial accident. You could point out, as mentioned above, that although Maria had assumed the risk of being injured by dangerous conditions in the stockroom, she had not assumed the risk of being injured by an employee’s battery. At a minimum, you could allege that Vinny's battery exacerbated the injury.