Legal Memorandum
Your assignment is to write a three to five page legal memo analyzing the fact pattern below. You are to discuss the parties and relevant issues in a thorough analysis. These issues deal with tort and Constitutional law. This is not an exercise in memory. Lawyers refer to resources all of the time when they are researching their legal problem. Use the course resources, weekly cases and case summaries to your advantage!
I am not as interested in your outcome (who will end up winning in court) as I am in how you use the law to support your conclusion. Base your answer only on the facts given.
Please analyze and address the questions (Two parts, I and II) regarding the following case scenario:
Case Scenario: Shoppers Mart, Inc., a large retail super market store that sells a variety of products, has had an eventful couple of weeks.
Part I:
There have been heavy rains in the area all week. On Wednesday, a ceiling tile that had become wet from a leaking roof in Shoppers Mart due to the heavy rain storms earlier in the week fell and hit some bags of peanuts causing the nuts to spill across the store aisle. Nicole, a customer, entered the aisle, slipped on the peanuts and broke her leg and arm. The manager of Shoppers Mart was unaware of the leaking roof and the wet ceiling tile and unaware that the peanuts had spilled onto the store floor.
Part II.
On Friday, a small group of political protestors carrying signs and quietly chanting were marching back and forth the full length of the public sidewalk in front of Shoppers Mart. Shoppers Mart encompasses the entire block by the public sidewalk with entry and exit doors located directly in the center of the store building, and with privately owned parking in the back of the store. Sometimes the protestors were at either of the two ends of the sidewalk in front of Shoppers Mart, and thus, not directly in front of the entry/exit door doors to Shoppers Mart. The protestors did not walk on or enter the private parking lot owned by Shoppers Mart; the protestors did not stop and congregate in front of the store or its entry/exit doors at any time. The management of Shoppers Mart believed that the protestors were impeding the ingress and egress of customers into Shoppers Mart end therefore interfering with business. Shoppers Mart called the police to have the protestors removed.
The police did not arrest the protestors but did require them to stop marching and move away from Shoppers Mart.
Assignment
Part I:
A. How likely is Nicole to win a negligence case against Shoppers Mart for her injuries resulting from slipping on the peanuts? Why?
B. Consider whether any, legal defense(s) could be raised by Shoppers Mart. Are any legal defenses likely to be successful in negating liability for Shoppers Mart? Why or why not? (Tip: Stick only to the facts in the case, do not assume any facts not given.)
Part II:
A. The protestors want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protestors sue for and why?
B. Could the protestors be convicted of trespassing against Shoppers Mart? Why or why not?