The Law of a Premises Liability case in the State of Texas demands that the Plaintiff must prove:
a. The premises (at Fort Bend Grocery) were dangerous or extra hazardous
b. That the owner of the premises (store) knew about the dangerous or extra hazardous condition
or they should have known
c. That the owner of the premises failed to reduce or eliminate the harm
d. Plaintiff was injured as a result of a, b, and c.
Is Fred Falldown's case an example of comparative negligence?
Based on the summary of facts and findings as set out above, take the side of the Plaintiff or the
Defendant and set forth arguments why your side should win and how much monetary damages,
if any, should be awarded by a judge or jury and in what amounts for each element of damages
such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages in the past and in the future. Please
explain the relevant legal principles and from the specific Texas law above and how they should
be applied to these set of facts from either the perspective of the Plaintiff or Defendant. Note:
this is not a case of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Go with your instincts for the side that you are most comfortable with and give your best
explanations and analysis. There is not an absolute clear-cut answer, but your task is to convince
a jury or judge why you should win. And would you be willing to settle? Or go to trial? If so,
how much would you be willing to accept as a settlement if you represent the Plaintiff or how
much are you willing to pay to settle the case if you are the Defendant? Or is your side willing to
go to trial and why? In which court would you file your lawsuit? And why that court? Are there
any crimes committed in these facts? Any criminal liability? Any punitive damages? If the
parties want to attempt settlement, should they use mediation, arbitration or some other method?
Based on the "Checklist for Deciding Whether to Sue" on page 94, is this case worthy of filing from the perspective of the plaintiff?
Please answer or comment on ALL issues and questions set out in this "question" from the perspective of your choice in order to get full credit. You are encouraged to offer constructive comments or counter-arguments to others' posts. I read all posts.
The Law of a Premises Liability case in the State of Texas demands that the Plaintiff must prove:
a. The premises (at Fort Bend Grocery) were dangerous or extra hazardous
b. That the owner of the premises (store) knew about the dangerous or extra hazardous condition or they should have known
c. That the owner of the premises failed to reduce or eliminate the harm
d. Plaintiff was injured as a result of a, b, and c.
In Texas, we follow the legal principle of "comparative negligence." Example: after hearing all the evidence, the jury finds that the plaintiff and the defendant are both negligent; defendant - 80%; plaintiff - 20% and awards $10,000.00 in monetary damages. That jury award will be reduced by the plaintiff's 20% negligence. Therefore the plaintiff will only recover $8,000.00. If plaintiff and defendant are both 50% negligent then plaintiff would only recover $5,000.00 of the total $10,000.00. If the plaintiff is found to be 51% negligent or more, then the plaintiff is "more negligent than the defendant" and recovers zero. Is Fred Falldown's case an example of comparative negligence?