Memorandum Of Law

Memorandum of Law

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Memorandum

To: Chief of Felony Prosecutions

From: Assistant Prosecutor

RE: Suzan Slip Case

Date: September 19, 2019

Question Presented

Susan is shopping in a supermarket. She passes through the fresh fruit section, steps on a squashed banana and breaks her hip. Does she have a legal claim against the supermarket?

Short Answer

Yes, she has a legal claim against the supermarket because her hips are broken because of the negligence of the fresh fruit section owners.

Statement of fact

Susan got her hips broken because she was passing from the fresh fruit section in the supermarket. She steps on the squashed banana and she fell which resulted in injury.

Discussion

Common law claims for damage infers an action that is taken against some party who is assumed to be negligent or who has committed some wrongful act that has resulted in some injury. Taking into account the common law, it is asserted that none of the human being or his actions could cause damage to another party (Lawcom.gov.us, 2019). In the subject case, Susan got injured because of the negligence of the owners and keepers of the fruit section in the supermarket. It is their responsibility to have a check and balance on fruits that are rotten and the leftover of the fruit that is thrown on the streets. It is asserted that there are some major elements of common law claim such as, the existence of a duty, the breach of that duty and the approximate case that appear by that breach and that damage. There are several cases that present the element of common law claim such as, Wise Vs Kaye. These cases present the same stance of negligence where the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was driven by the defendant named as Robert Frank. As a result of Collison, the plaintiff remained unconscious for a long time. According to the medical reports, it was found that the passenger not only got injured but she has to face some emotional distress for a very long time. After legal proceedings, it was concluded that the common law claim was applicable because the driver was responsible for long-term health complications. It is one of the examples of the elements of common law claim (Slip and Fall Accidents, 2019).

Another example of the element of common law claim for damage can be found in H West & Son Ltd Vs Shepherd. Here, the client was knocked by a lorry that was owned by the first decedent and was driven negligently by the second defendant. She suffered a serious head injury that made her paralyzed. As a result of paralysis, she lost the ability to speak. Although it was claimed that the amount awarded was very high still this case resembles to that of the subject claim. It is asserted that this case is a complete adherence to the common lawsuit because of the complications from which the client suffered solely because of the negligence of the lorry driver. Moreover, the justification of more amount awarded satisfies the pain that the client has to suffer for the next few years because of the paralysis and a permanent loss of speaking ability. At least money could help to buy necessities of life and get a better treatment that could led her to live a better life (Lawcom.gov.us, 2019).

The analysis of the fact pattern highlights the summary or the key facts of the particular case. There are similar cases that share the same fact pattern. Marie Arnos case is one of the examples in which the girl tripped and fell over a flatbed that was left by an employee. She suffered multiple injuries and then visited the chiropractic office where her case was considered and she received compensations for what happened to her. It is evident that Marie slipped because of the negligence of the employee, if there was duty of care, this case would not have happened (Slip and Fall Accidents, 2019).

Gator Bites Café is another example of fall and slipcase in which a boy slipped because of a napkin that was lying on the floor along with a fried piece of the gator that was having sauce underneath. As a result, he got slipped and his mouth hit the corner of the table that knocked a large portion of teeth along with other injuries. One of the major point to address in this case is the justification that is related to boy. Special attention should be given to the surroundings when there are children around. A minor negligence caused massive pain and injury to the boy in a very small age that is quiet disturbing (Slip and Fall Accidents, 2019).

The case of Rachel is one of the significant examples of the same topic. Here, Rachel was in a massage center where she got her body massaged and got a facial treatment. After the facile treatment, she was about to walk on the floor but she got slipped from the dollar seized blob on the floor that was left from the spa technician. In the continuation of the above case, this case also infers how negligence of duty of care can cause something devastating, The spa technician would have removed all the left overs but her negligence compromised the life of the client who came to give herself a better treatment (Slip and Fall Accidents, 2019).

Conclusion

After an analysis of the elements of the case and the applicability of lawsuit in accordance with past scenarios and cases, it can be concluded that the case of Suzan is valid because she got herself injured and her hips got broken because of the negligence of the shopkeepers. It was their obligation to keep the surroundings clean so that incidents can be avoided. Moreover, Suzan suffered a great loss, if there were a minor injury, the case would have been different.

Memorandum

To: Chief of Felony Prosecutions

From: Assistant Prosecutor

RE: Robert Car Injury Case

Date: September 19, 2019

Question Presented

John and Robert are enjoying the first ride in John’s new Miata convertible with the top down. While the sun is out now, it has just rained. There are still puddles on the road and John is driving too fast. John loses control of the car on a sharp curve and the car slips. Robert, not wearing his seatbelt is thrown from the vehicle and he got injured. John was unable to gain control of the car and he has got no injuries, his car is also undamaged.

Simple Answer

Taking into account the fact that Robert got injured because of the carelessness of his friend. It is asserted that the case is valid. However, the other point is, Robert was not himself wearing a seat belt and that would automatically affect the claim.

Discussion

Common law claims that actions should be taken against an individual who is responsible for causing damage or threat of life to someone because of negligence and lack of care. The same case can be found in this subject’s case (Schwartz, et al. 2010). Two friends, John and Robert were rising, the road was having puddles due to rain. Robert was not wearing a seat belt and as a result of the loss of control of the car by John, Robert is thrown out of the vehicle. This is a valid concern that it was the lack of care or negligence from John. However, Robert was not wearing a seat belt which is also a major point. Taking into account the elements of these claims, some other cases can be considered.

One of the elements of claim can be found in the case of Alex Smith, where one of the individuals got injured because of the negligence of Alex Smith. The individual was driving a car when he saw that another vehicle was approaching his vehicle. After complete reporting it was highlighted that the individual was also over speeding but the car of Alex remained undamaged. It was asserted that the accident was a clear illustration of the lack of attention of Alex Smith as he was negligent of approaching another car (Legal Claims After Car Accident, 2019).

Another example is of the case that was reported a few years ago. Jim stopped at a red traffic light and suddenly a car bumped into the rear of his car. Another important point to note is, the fellow passenger with Jim was not wearing a seat belt and as a result of that, the passenger got a hit in the head. It is added that the car didn’t suffer any kind of damage. It is one of the types of negligence. Although there is no argument on Jim’s end but it is evident that the fellow passenger got a hit because of the guidance of the one who was driving a vehicle behind him (Legal Claims After Car Accident, 2019).

Fact pattern plays a central role in determining the type of case and the decisions that can affirm a possible solution. In accordance with the subject case, it can be understood that it is a comparative lawsuit. It is found that there are two dimensions that are equally valid. One of the example of such a scenario is that of a motorbike that stopped at a signal. As the biker was about to take a turn when he saw another biker who was approaching at a fairly greater speed, reported to be 10mph over the speed limit. Watching the biker coming, the first biker failed to use the run signal and it resulted in a collision that injured the bike rider. After filing case, the jury found that it was comparative negligence and the biker who got a hit was dealing with 30% of negligence and 70% was the negligence of the other bike rider who was over speeding (Legal Claims After Car Accident, 2019).

Another case of the same background can be found in the case of a drunk driver. It was found that one of the friends who was sitting beside the driver was drunk while the driver was overspeeding. After the case was taken to the court, it was found that both the parties were guilty because one was over speeding and the other was drunk and he was not wearing the seat belt. In continuation of the subject case, it can be highlighted that the driver, as well as the friend both, are guilty and it would be shared compensation because Robert should be wearing a seat belt.

Conclusion

The analysis of the case in the light of other cases and the legal framework; it can be concluded that Robert deserves compensation but it would be comparative because he is also guilty of negligence. He was not wearing a seat belt so he will receive the compensation but after the deduction of negligence. Here, comparative negligence would be applied where, Robert would be compensated but it would be affected by the idea that he was not wearing a seat belt that is one of the conclusion and a necessary to do.

References

(2019). Lawcom.gov.us. Retrieved from http://www.lawcom.gov.us/app/uploads/2016/08/No.140-Damages-for-Personal-Injury-Non-Pecuniary-Loss-A-Consultation-Paper.pdf

Legal Claims After Car Accident. (2019). www.alllaw.com. Retrieved from https://www.alllaw.com/resources/auto-accident/car-accident-claims

Schwartz, V. E., & Rowe, E. F. (2010). Comparative negligence. LexisNexis.

Slip and Fall Accidents: Proving Fault. (2019). www.nolo.com. Retrieved 19 September 2019, from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/slip-fall-accidents-proving-fault-29845.html