First, reply to the three other groups that had the same injury as you. Compare the answers and identify any differences between their final answer and your group’s final answer.
Second, reply to one group for each of the four other injuries in the story. The assignments are below so you can find them easily. Reply if you agree or disagree with their answer and how you would change it. Grade each one on a scale from 1 (totally wrong) to 10 (so perfect that it’s better than Werner could possibly do).
Groups 1-4 Left ankle
Groups 5-8 Left hip
Groups 9-12 Left knee
Groups 13-16 Right foot
Groups 17-20 Fingers
* The discussion was about if Jane will win or lose her lawsuit. I will upload the Jane’s Bad Day. I will also attach other groups’ discussions to reply.
Here is my group’s discussion (Group 7- Left hip)
Before making the case altogether, we would need information on several points. First, in regards to the “watch your step” sign that is located by the front door, is that implying an extra step before entering the hotel or the spill itself? Generally, “watch your step” sign is not equivalent to a caution sign that are temporarily placed. Secondly, was there a caution sign visibly placed by the puddle or an employee present to warn the guests walking by? Lastly, was the puddle made aware to an employee or noticed by one? Since the puddle was spilled 5 minutes prior, there should have been a caution sign or an employee standing by to warn others while another was in the process of retrieving one or resolving the issue.
Jane will not be able to win this case. If the spill was open and obvious, the hotel does not have any liability to Jane, a licensee. Based on the contributory negligence law, Jane’s carelessness contributed to the injury. Therefore, the case will be dismissed. Based on both the “pure” and “less-than” systems of the comparative negligence laws, it will not apply to Jane because the hotel does not need to hold liability for a licensee. Even if the spill was unknown, the hotel still does not hold any liability to Jane.
If the puddle was known by an employee, the hotel does hold liability to Jane to remove or warn. If the employee knew about the puddle but did not take any further actions, he or she had neglected and breached his or her duty by failing to place a caution sign or warn the guests walking by. The employee’s actions led to a foreseeable injury that could have been prevented. Based on the “pure system” of the comparative negligence law, Jane will recover 40% of the damages. As damages may cost around $80,000 for a hip surgery, she would be able to recover around $32,000. Based on the “less-than” of the comparative negligence law, Jane will not be able to recover any damages because her percentage of fault is greater than that of the hotel’s.
Examples of reply:
1. I agree that the case involves the negligence, and respondeat superior, but I’m not sure there is res ipsa loquitur because Jane needs to prove that the incident was caused by an accident that would not normally have happened without negligence. I think the negligence per se might also involve because according to the content, Alex knew that where Jane’s left hand was but still slammed the car door, which proximate cause Jane’s five fingers broken. And the reason for this result was Jane did not pay the tip, so Alex might do it on purpose with retaliation. But both of them need to prove it. I agree that Jane will receive compensatory damages. And I think Jane should also receive punitive damages because fingers are important for people’s daily life. I would give a 9/10.
2. I wouldn’t agree that the “swin at your own risk” sign would be a viable defense for the hotel. Typically, the risks associated with swimming would include things such as drowning or slipping near the pool. Broken pieces of glass are not within the foreseeable risks in a swimming activity in a hotel pool. Otherwise great answer!
I rate this answer 7/10.
3. I agree with most of your answers. My group and I put that respondeat superior would not apply to Jane’s injury but to think about it now, I think that your answer makes sense. Jane could prove that the employee spilled the coffee, if the employee did, and sue the hotel. The way that she could prove it would be to rewatch the security camera footage and identify the person that spilled the coffee. Overall, great job! I would give your response 9/10.
0 comments