Samantha Smith And Suicide Case Study Essay
Samantha Smith slipped and fell on shampoo that had spilled in the health and beauty department of the grocery store in question. Ms. Smith had suffered a broken hip from the incident and is going to be spending the next few months in physical therapy. Ms. Smith has no health insurance and is a single mother of a 2 year old boy. After our complaints were filed in the courts; the grocery store alleges that Ms. Smith had a duty herself to avoid the spillage, but was too distracted by her young son to notice. The store feels that Ms. Smith should be held just as responsible as they are in the case. The question being presented today, is if both parties involved are equally responsible? Ms. Smith does in fact possibly hold some sort of comparative fault in this case. The grocery store did complete their scheduled aisle check just thirty minutes before Ms. Smith slipped. IND. Code Ann. §34-51-2-5 (WEST 1998) states that “in an action based on fault, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimants contributory fault, but does not bar recovery”.
…show more content…
Smith with comparative fault. The biggest fact being that she was not paying attention, because she was dealing with her 2 year old son. It does not seem that the store is not at all responsible for the injuries she sustained. Yes, the aisle check was done at the scheduled time, but it was checked by an older gentleman that wore prescription glasses. As in Wal-Mart v. Wright, 774 NE 2d 891 (2002) where Wright was found at comparative fault and awarded 30% less in damages, this too could be the case with Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith states negligence on the grocery stores behalf, but she too had a duty to pay attention to her surroundings. The grocery store in question has documented proof of an aisle check being done at 1:00
Smith with comparative fault. The biggest fact being that she was not paying attention, because she was dealing with her 2 year old son. It does not seem that the store is not at all responsible for the injuries she sustained. Yes, the aisle check was done at the scheduled time, but it was checked by an older gentleman that wore prescription glasses. As in Wal-Mart v. Wright, 774 NE 2d 891 (2002) where Wright was found at comparative fault and awarded 30% less in damages, this too could be the case with Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith states negligence on the grocery stores behalf, but she too had a duty to pay attention to her surroundings. The grocery store in question has documented proof of an aisle check being done at 1:00