week 4 predictive Memorandum (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Bryant & Stratton College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
135
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by JusticeSteel12842
Statement of Facts:
Ms. Taylor, a Miller's Fun Park patron, suffered a broken leg after slipping on a puddle of water
near one of the rides. The accident occurred during normal operating hours, and no warning signs
or cones were placed around the area where Ms. Taylor fell. Additionally, there was no evidence
that employees had attempted to clean up the water before the accident.
Question(s) Presented:
Would Ms. Taylor likely succeed in a negligence claim against Miller's Fun Park?
Short Answer (s):
Ms. Taylor would likely succeed in a negligence claim against Miller's Fun Park.
Analysis:
Under Michigan law, to prove negligence, Ms. Taylor must establish four elements: duty, breach
of duty, causation, and damages (Harris v. Loberman). In this case, Miller's Fun Park owed a
duty of care to its patrons to maintain reasonably safe premises (Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.). By
failing to warn patrons of the wet floor or clean up the spillage promptly, Miller's breached this
duty of care.
Causation is also present as the failure of Miller's Fun Park to take reasonable precautions led
directly to her injury (Henderson v. Hyatt Regency Detroit). Finally, damages are evident since
she suffered from a broken leg.
The defendant might argue that Ms. Taylor contributed to her injuries by not avoiding the wet
floor or engaging in reckless behavior while using the ride (Parker v. Highland Park Market
Inc.). However, these arguments need to be stronger because she could not have taken any
reasonable steps when the park staff made no warnings or cleaning efforts.
The defendant could also argue that they did not know the wet floor because no documentation
from employees or witnesses stated otherwise (Simmons vs. Hilltop Reality Inc.). Nonetheless,
based on how slippery and wet the ground was, it is reasonable to assume that park employees
should have been aware of the condition and acted accordingly.
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, Ms. Taylor would likely succeed in a negligence claim against
Miller's Fun Park. The client should be advised to initiate a lawsuit and pursue compensation for
her injuries. It is suggested that Miller's Fun Park must take appropriate precautions in
maintaining its premises to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future.
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