Case Study Research Essay

Case One Barsz v. Max Shapiro, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 600 N.E.2d 151 (1992) Fact Marjorie Barsz brought scorn action against Shapiros Delicatessen Cafeteria to recover for face-to-face injuries sustained when she slipped and fell, breaking her right ankle and remaining over(p) knee cap. Her husband, Carl Barsz brought action against the restaurant for loss of pocket billiards with his wife due to Mrs. Barszs injuries. The electrical circuit motor hotel of Shelby County granted abstract creative thinker for the restaurant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, stolon regulate held that genuine issues of material incidents existed and reversed the summary judgment. come in Was Shapiros Delicatessen Cafeteria negligent in identifying and correcting the condition of the floor in the restaurant, causing Marjorie Barszs accident? encounter GOLBA v. KOHLS DEPT. STORE, INC. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992) abstract To avoid summary judgment, Marjorie Bar sz had to show that there was a defective condition in the floor of the restaurant which caused her slip and fall, and that the restaurant unreasonably failed to discover and remedy the hazardous condition. Genuine material facts existed which precluded summary judgment for the restaurant. Summary judgment is generally inappropriate in negligence cases. Trial Procedure Rule 56(C) closing curtain A restaurant cannot be held strictly conjectural for a fall that occurred before having a sound chance to remove a foreign join from its floor restaurant as not the compulsive guarantor of customer safety. However, summary judgment cannot be granted when a genuine material fact exists.Case Two Golba v. Kohls Dept. Store, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992) Facts complainant Stella Golba brought negligence action against defendant Kohls subdivision Store stemming from a slip and fall accident. Ms. Golba stepped on a small object on a glossy floor, causing her to trip and fall. The floor had solo been swept one time on the morning of the accident. The Circuit Court of Starke County granted the memorys effect for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District held that material issues of fact existed and reversed the summary judgment. Issue Was Kohls Department Store negligent in maintaining their floors in a safe condition for patrons? Rule BURRELL v. MEADS Ind. 569 N.E.2d 637 (1991)Analysis A land owner is idea to liability for physical vilify caused to his nodes by a condition on the land if, but unaccompanied if, he knows or exercising sensible fearfulness would discover the condition, and should realize that it is an un average risk of harm to invitees, and should expect that they will not realize the danger, or will not protect themselves against it, and fails to knead reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Normally, determining whether the host has exercised reasonable care to make the ir premises safe for an invitee is a question of fact for a jury. close Sweeping of a floor only once in the morning does not constitute exercise of reasonable care to prevent injury to customers from objects left in the floor. The issue of fact as to whether the store had notice of the object in the floor precluded a summary judgment.