LGST 101 Project 1- Mark Strack

.docx

School

University of Maryland, University College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Law

Date

Jun 14, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperWaterHummingbird17

TO: Bernie Franks, Director of Paralegals FROM: Mark Strack RE: Case Analysis and Recommendation DATE: 10/23/2021 Part I: Case Analysis Case A. Anderson v. Stop & Shop Anderson v. Stop & Shop is a case where the Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the jury’s award of damages. The Court of Special Appeals is an intermediate (middle level) appellate court in the Maryland state judicial system. Anderson, a 42-year-old clerical worker, tripped and fell over a case of cola that had fallen off the shelf and was sitting in the aisle of an Annapolis, Maryland convenience store. She was taken by ambulance to a local emergency room where she was treated for a sprained right ankle, and a torn ligament in her right knee. Anderson sued the convenience store claiming the case of cola was blocking the aisle and that the store was negligent in not moving it out of the way. The Defendant store claimed it had no knowledge that the case of cola had fallen off the shelf. The jury found that the Defendant convenience store was liable for the Plaintiff’s injuries and awarded the Plaintiff damages of $99,112. 1. Anderson v. Stop & Shop is mandatory authority because it was upheld at the Maryland Court of Special Appeals which is a higher court than the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals is the intermediate appellate court that has jurisdiction over all lower-level courts in the state of Maryland. 2. The Anderson case and Smith case have similarities. In the Anderson case it is noted that Ms. Anderson tripped over a case of cola which had fallen from the shelf injuring her right knee and ankle, the defendant claimed they had no knowledge of the fallen case of cola. Whereas in the Smith case it would show negligence on the part of the defendant because the worker intentionally placed the boxes in the middle of the isle which resulted in Mrs. Smith falling injuring her ankle and giving her a concussion. As we see in the Anderson case even with the defendant claiming no knowledge of the item which injured the plaintiff, the plaintiff was awarded damages. In Mrs. Smith’s case the defendant’s worker knew about the

potential hazard within the walk way, we can assume given the facts of the Anderson case that Mrs. Smith will be awarded damages. Case B: Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary Brown, 37-year-old woman, was walking through a drug store in Baltimore, Maryland when she slipped and fell over a cosmetics display stand sitting at the end of an aisle. The display partially blocked the aisle through which customers would walk. Brown sustained knee, foot and shoulder injuries requiring surgery. Brown sued the Apothecary for her injuries, arguing that the store negligently placed the display where customers walked. The jury found the Defendant store liable and awarded her damages of $152,000. 1. The Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary would have mandatory authority over the Circuit court of Montgomery County, Maryland. This case was ruled on from the Maryland Court of Appeals which is the highest court in Maryland. The Maryland Court of Appeals would have mandatory authority over all the lower courts in the state of Maryland. 2. The Brown opinion is closely related to the Smith case because it has the same facts of the case. In the Brown case the defendant placed a cosmetic display at the end of an aisle partially blocking the isle, the defendant was aware of the display at the time of the incident. The plaintiff slipped and fell over the display which was placed at the end of the aisle injuring her knee, foot, and shoulder. The Smith case has the same elements; the defendant placed an obstruction in the aisle which created a hazard in the walkway. This hazard resulted in Mrs. Smith to fall, injuring her ankle and causing a concussion. Since the Brown v. Atlantic Apothecary case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, we can assume the Smith case will be ruled the same because these cases would be argued to be “on all fours.” Case C: Collins v. Heartland Home Goods Collins v. Heartland Home Goods is a case where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the jury’s finding and the jury’s award of damages. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the highest court in the Pennsylvania state judicial system. Collins was shopping in a home goods store in York, Pennsylvania when he fell on a wet floor that had been recently mopped and left to air dry without

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