Kelly V. Movie Theater free essay sample

Negligence Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages. Special Duty – Land Occupier Invitee A special duty arises in circumstances involving a land occupier. An invitee is one who enters the land with the owner’s permission for the purpose related to the activity. The landowner owes an invitee a duty of care to inspect and discover any dangerous condition and to make the premises safe. Kelly went to the Movie Theater to see a movie. Hence, Kelly is a social guest entering with Movie Theater’s permission and thus an invitee. Because Kelly was an invitee, The Movie Theater owed a duty to Kelly to inspect the premises, discover, and remove any known dangers. Breach The Movie Theater knew that restroom sink pipe was broken and did not warn Kelly, or any other patron, of the leaky sink pipe in the restroom. We will write a custom essay sample on Kelly V. Movie Theater or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Theater did not warn of water in front of the restroom sinks. Their failure to warn Kelly of the dangerous condition was a breach of their duty of due care. However, the Movie Theater will argue that they did call for a plumber to fix the pipe and the plumber could not come until the following day. Further, they sent an employee into the restroom to mop up the water every 15 minutes. However, Movie Theater should have placed some type of warning of the water. Therefore, Movie Theater breached their duty of due care owed to Kelly. Actual Causation â€Å"But for† the failure to warn of the water in front of the restroom sink in the girls restroom Kelly would not have slipped on a puddle of water and suffer a painful shoulder injury. Thus, the Movie Theater is the actual cause of Kelly’s injuries Proximate Causation It is foreseeable if you fail to warn of a puddle of water on the floor, that one could slip and become injured. Therefore, Movie Theater is the proximate cause of Kellys injures. General Damages General damages are those damages that flow from the tort. Plaintiff must have sustained actual damages to person or property to recover for negligence. Kelly suffered a painful shoulder. She should recover general damages for her pain and suffering. Therefore, general damages are recoverable. Special Damages Plaintiff may recover for any medical damages or lost of income if specifically plead. Kelly should be able to recover damages for out-of-pocket expenses related to the hospitalization and other related medical care for her shoulder. Therefore, special damages if plead and proven are recoverable. B. Cindy and Sandy v. Movie Theater Negligence Duty Trespasser A trespasser is one who comes upon the land without the permission of the owner. The general rule is that there is no duty owed to a trespasser. Cindy and Sandy broke into the Movie Theater after it had closed for the night. Thus, they came upon the land without the permission of the Movie Theater. Movie Theater will argue since Cindy and Sandy were trespassers there is no duty owed. Therefore, there is no duty of care owed to Cindy or Sandy. General Duty – Rowland v. Christian However, pursuant to Rowland v. Christian, a minority rule, Movie Theater owes a duty to act as a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances. Thus, Movie Theater had a duty of due care to make sure that anyone coming onto the premises did so without harm. Therefore, Movie Theater owes a duty of due care to Cindy and Sandy. Breach Since Movie Theater’s employee left the vacuum plugged in and because there were no lights in the Theater, Cindy tripped over a cord that was left plugged in across the aisles and fell head first into a row of seats. Further, Sandy ran to the restroom to get some paper towels for Cindy’s face that was bleeding and slipped on the wet floor because it was dark in the Theater and she did not see the wet sign posted in the restroom. Movie Theater did not act as a reasonable prudent person would have under the same or similar circumstances. Their failure to warn Cindy of the cord across the movie aisle, and the failure to make sure persons using the restroom would be able to see the sign created a dangerous condition which was a breach of their duty of due care. Therefore, Movie Theater breached their duty of due care. Actual Causation â€Å"But for† Movie Theater’s failure to properly warn of the cord running across the aisle and the failure to properly warn of the wet restroom floor, Cindy and Sandy would not have been injured. Thus, Movie Theater was the actual cause of Cindy’s and Sandy’s injuries. Proximate Causation Cindy and Sandy will argue that there injuries from their falls was a foreseeable result from falling over a cord that was across the aisle and a wet floor in the restroom. Movie Theater will argue that the independent contractor who was cleaning the Theater left the plugged cord from the vacuum across the aisle and he was an intervening act. However, the independent contractor may be an indirect act, but foreseeable and thus will not sever causation to relieve defendant of liability of the intervening negligence. As discussed Movie Theater failed to properly warn Cindy of the cord and Sandy of the wet floor, and therefore it is foreseeable one could be injured by water on the floor. Therefore, Movie Theater is the proximate cause of all of Cindy’s and Sandy’s injuries. Damages Defined supra. Cindy and Sandy suffered injury. They will recover general damages for their pain and suffering. C. Ed v Movie Theater Negligence Defined supra. Negligence Per Se – Violation of Statute Negligence per se by violation of statute is where there is a clear intent to legislate in order to protect a class of persons to be protected from the type of injury suffered. To establish negligence per se, you need to look to the intent of the legislature in creating the statute, you must be a member of the class the statute is designed to protect and the injury must be the type the legislature is trying to prevent. Under majority jurisdictions, violation of the statute means the defendant is negligent as a matter of law establishing both a duty and a breach. Under some minority jurisdictions, violation of the statute creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, while in other minority jurisdictions it is only evidence of negligence. Movie Theater is required to illuminate the auditorium aisle with one candle unit of light per linear foot. The intent of the legislature is to protect persons from being injured in the Theater who need to leave safely in case of an emergency when they leave the Theater. Further, the legislature intended to protect Patrons of the Theater. As such, Ed was a patron of the Theater and is a member of the class that the statute was designed to protect. Although the movie Theater has illuminated auditorium aisles a patron spilled is super giant coke on the floor shorting out the floor lights for the entire auditorium. The movie Theater sells drinks to patron and a spill caused the entire lighting for the aisle to go out. The fact Theater has no lighting shows they violated the statutory requirement of one candle unit of light per linear foot. Since Ed was a patron in the Theater at the time he was injured, the intent of the legislature was to protect him from falling from unseen object on the floor or tripping do to no lighting. Therefore, Movie Theater’s violation of the statutory lightening requirement is negligence per se. Common Law Negligence Duty Defendant has a duty to act as a reasonable prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Movie Theater owes their patrons a duty to illuminate the aisles in order for patrons to see where they are going. A reasonable prudent person would take steps reasonably necessary to assure that if a spillage does occur that the entire lighting of the aisles does not short out. Thus, a reasonable movie Theater would have lighting throughout the auditorium. Therefore, Movie Theater owes a duty of care to Ed. Breach A breach is a failure to act as a reasonable prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Patron purchased a drink at the Theater and spilled super coke shorting out all the floor lights for the entire auditorium. A reasonable Theater would either have a backup system for lighting, or when a spillage occurs the lights where the spilled occurred would only be effected versus the entire floor. Thus, Movie Theater’s conduct by failing to have any lights on the entire floor fell below the reasonable person standard of care. Therefore, Movie Theater breached their duty owed to Ed. Actual Cause â€Å"But for† the lights shorting out Ed would not have slipped on the puddle of coke spilled on the floor and suffer from a broken ankle. Thus, Movie Theater was the actual cause of Ed’s damages. Proximate Cause It is foreseeable that if all the floor lighting goes out that a patron could slip on food or drinks that have been spilled by another patron and be injured. Therefore, Movie Theater was the proximate cause of Ed’s damages. Damages Plaintiff must also have sustained actual damages to person or property to recover for negligence. Due to the puddle of coke left on the floor and no floor lights to enable a patron to see the spilled coke Ed would not have suffered a broken ankle. Therefore, Ed will recover damages for his injury to his ankle. Mrs. Witkins v Movie Theater Negligence Defined supra Special Duty – Land Occupier Invitee Defined supra. Mrs. Witkins went to the Movie Theater to see a movie. Hence, Mrs. Witkins is a social guest entering with Movie Theater’s permission and thus an invitee. Because Mrs. Witkins was an invitee, The Movie Theater owed a duty to Mrs. Witkins to inspect the premises, discover, and remove any known dangers. Breach The Movie Theater knew that there could be a potential spillage of drink or food since they did sell them to the patrons who came to their movie Theater. Theater did not warn of the floor lightening being out or of the puddle of coke on the floor. Their failure to warn Mrs. Witkins of the dangerous condition was a breach of their duty of due care. Therefore, Movie Theater breached their duty of due care owed to Mrs. Witkins. Actual Causation – Successive Tortfeasor But for† the successive negligent act of the Patron spilling the coke and leaving it on the floor causing all of the floor lighting to go out and Movie Theater’s act of not having additional lighting or monitoring for spills, Mrs. Witkins would not have sustained an allergic reaction. Thus, Movie Theater is the actual cause of Mrs. Witkins’ injuries. Proximate Causation It is foreseeable if you fail to warn of a puddl e on the floor, or no lights illuminating the floor that one could slip and become injured. Movie Theater will contend that it was not foreseeable that the Dr. Pepper and popcorn would cause anything beyond a mere mess. Mrs. Witkins is suffering from an allergic reaction which was not foreseeable. However, under the thin-skull Plaintiff doctrine, one takes the Plaintiff as one finds her. Thus, Mrs. Witkins’ reaction to the Dr. Pepper and popcorn would be foreseeable. Therefore, Movie Theater is the proximate cause of Mrs. Witkins’ injures. General Damages Defined supra. Mrs. Witkins suffered an allergic reaction to the spill. She should recover general damages for her pain and suffering from her allergy.