LGST 101 Project 1- Mark Strack
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland, University College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
101
Subject
Law
Date
Jun 14, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by SuperWaterHummingbird17
TO: Bernie Franks, Director of Paralegals
FROM:
Mark Strack
RE:
Case Analysis and Recommendation DATE: 10/23/2021
Part I: Case Analysis
Case A. Anderson v. Stop & Shop
Anderson v. Stop & Shop
is a case where the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the jury’s award of damages. The Court of Special Appeals is an intermediate (middle level) appellate court in the Maryland state judicial system.
Anderson, a 42-year-old clerical worker, tripped and fell over a case of cola that had fallen off the shelf and was sitting in the aisle of an Annapolis, Maryland convenience store. She was taken by ambulance to a local emergency room where she was treated for a sprained right ankle, and a torn ligament in her right knee.
Anderson sued the convenience store claiming the case of cola was blocking the aisle and that the store was negligent in not moving it out of the way. The Defendant store claimed it had no knowledge that the case of cola had fallen off the shelf. The jury found that the Defendant convenience store was liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries and awarded the Plaintiff damages of $99,112.
1. Anderson v. Stop & Shop
is mandatory authority because it was upheld at the Maryland Court of Special Appeals which is a higher court than the Circuit
Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals is the intermediate appellate court that has jurisdiction over all lower-level courts in the state of Maryland.
2. The Anderson case and Smith case have similarities. In the Anderson case it is noted that Ms. Anderson tripped over a case of cola which had fallen from the shelf injuring her right knee and ankle, the defendant claimed they had no knowledge of the fallen case of cola. Whereas in the Smith case it would show negligence on the part of the defendant because the worker intentionally placed the boxes in the middle of the isle which resulted in Mrs. Smith falling injuring her ankle and giving her a concussion. As we see in the Anderson case even with the defendant claiming no knowledge of the item which injured the plaintiff, the plaintiff was awarded damages. In Mrs. Smith’s case the defendant’s worker knew about the
potential hazard within the walk way, we can assume given the facts of the Anderson case that Mrs. Smith will be awarded damages.
Case B: Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary
Brown, 37-year-old woman, was walking through a drug store in Baltimore, Maryland when she slipped and fell over a cosmetics display stand sitting at the end of an aisle. The display partially blocked the aisle through which customers would walk. Brown sustained knee, foot and shoulder injuries requiring surgery. Brown sued the Apothecary for her injuries, arguing that the store negligently placed the display where customers walked. The jury found the Defendant store liable and awarded her damages of $152,000.
1. The Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary
would have mandatory authority over the Circuit court of Montgomery County, Maryland. This case was ruled on from the Maryland Court of Appeals which is the highest court in Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals would have mandatory authority over all the lower courts in the state of Maryland.
2. The Brown
opinion is closely related to the Smith case because it has the same facts of the case. In the Brown case the defendant placed a cosmetic display at the end of an aisle partially blocking the isle, the defendant was aware of the display at the time of the incident. The plaintiff slipped and fell over the display which was placed at the end of the aisle injuring her knee, foot, and shoulder. The Smith case has the same elements; the defendant placed an obstruction
in the aisle which created a hazard in the walkway. This hazard resulted in Mrs. Smith to fall, injuring her ankle and causing a concussion. Since the Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary
case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, we can assume the Smith case will be ruled the same because these cases would be
argued to be “on all fours.”
Case C: Collins v. Heartland Home Goods
Collins v. Heartland Home Goods
is a case where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the jury’s finding and the jury’s award of damages. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the highest court in the Pennsylvania state judicial system.
Collins was shopping in a home goods store in York, Pennsylvania when he fell on a wet floor that had been recently mopped and left to air dry without
any warning signs placed nearby. He sustained a broken leg and a wrist injury requiring medical treatment and physical therapy. Collins sued the home goods store for failing to warn of the wet floor and potential fall hazard. The jury found the Defendant store liable and awarded Collins damages of $22,000.
1. The Collins v. Heartland Home Goods
case does not have mandatory authority in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland because the case was decided in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Pennsylvania does not
have jurisdiction over the Maryland court system. Although the ruling on this case could be used as persuasive authority over the Circuit Court of Maryland.
2. Collins v. Heartland Home Goods,
being used as
persuasive authority could offer reinforced case law showing the elements of the case that result in a jury awarding the plaintiff for damages. The facts of this case are Mr. Collins fell on a wet floor which had been recently mopped; the defendant neglected to properly identify the area with a wet floor sign. Due to this negligence the plaintiff suffered a broken leg and wrist.
As this case pertains to the Smith case one could show that there is not a properly marked area warning of the hazard which resulted to injury of the plaintiff. The jury awarded the plaintiff damages in this case because of the negligence of the defendant.
Part II: Recommendation
A.
A. Is Mrs. Smith likely to collect damages as result of her lawsuit? Mrs. Smith has a high probabili
ty of collecting damages with the facts of the case provided.
B.
B. Which case provides the strongest support for Mrs. Smith: Anderson
,
Brown
, or Collins
? The best support for the Smith case would be Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary.
C.
C. Thoroughly explain why the case that you chose in II.B best supports
Mrs. Smith's case. Explain both the apparent strengths of the case you selected and the potential weaknesses of the cases you did not choose.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
The case I chose to best support Mrs. Smith’s case is Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary because it best resembles the Smith case. I believe this case would be argued “on all fours.” It holds strong authority having a ruling from the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland. The details of both cases are the defendant knowingly and willfully placed a hazardous obstacle within the walkway of all customers, there were no warnings of the potential trip hazard, and the plaintiff resulted in injury due to the negligence
of the defendant or its employees. The weakest case would be Collins v. Heartland Home Goods. The case has no mandatary authority over the Maryland court system. The case itself does
show negligence by the defendant when they decided not to provide proper signage warning of unsafe walkways. The plaintiff did receive injuries due to this negligence and the jury did award the plaintiff with compensation for damages incurred. The case of Anderson v. Stop & Shop had a difference from the Smith case. The defendant claimed there was no knowledge of the hazard at the time of injury. They jury awarded the plaintiff damages even though the defendant claimed they were unaware of the hazard. With the information provided, the rulings from the jury on all 3 cases conclude that whether or not the defendant has knowledge of the hazard prior to injury, they are still liable to damages.