Week 4 Memo Portfolio Project

.docx

School

Bryant and Stratton College, Buffalo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

136

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by dms62795

memo Morgan & Morgan, LLP To: Lori Morgan, Managing Partner From: Dawn Hagens, Paralegal Date: February 2, 2024 Re: Negligence Lawsuit on Behalf of Ms. Kelly Taylor Against Miller’s Fun Park Statement of Facts Ms. Kelly Taylor is seeking legal recourse against Miller's Fun Park after sustaining significant injuries that resulted from a zip-lining accident. She visited the park wither her friend, Mr. Brian Greene, on a Tuesday evening in January. Even after purchasing zip line tickets, neither Ms. Taylor nor Mr. Greene were provided with any training or physical measurements, such as weight and height checks. Mr. Walter Walker, the owner of the zip line at Miller’s Fun Park, fitted Mr. Greene safely; however, he overlooked ensuring Ms. Taylor wore a helmet due to being distracted by a phone call. This oversight is what led to Ms. Taylor's significant injuries after falling approximately 30 feet, causing fractures, a concussion, and substantial medical bills. Question Presented The key question in this case is does Ms. Kelly Taylor have a valid negligence claim against Miller’s Fun Park, and if so, what defenses can the park raise? Short Answer Yes, Ms. Taylor has a valid negligence claim against Miller’s Fun Park. In Pennsylvania negligence consists of four elements which are a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct (duty of care), breach of duty, a causal relationship exists between the breach of the duty of care and the resulting injury (causation), and the plaintiff incurred actual loss or damage. Miller's Fun Park had a duty of care to ensure the safety of its patrons. Due to Mr. Walker’s failure to provide proper safety measures and check Ms. Taylor's helmet his actions constituted a breach of this duty. This breach caused Ms. Taylor's injuries, resulting in substantial damage. Analysis Elements of Negligence . 1 LN Practice Guide: Pennsylvania Personal Injury § 3.03 (2023).

i. Duty of Care: Establishing a duty of care is essential in negligence cases. Miller’s Fun Park, as the operator of the zip line, had a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct in regard to its patrons, including Ms. Taylor. The duty of Miller’s Fun Park includes ensuring the safety of all guests and providing proper instructions and safety equipment. ii. Breach of Duty: Ms. Taylor's accident occurred due to the failure of Miller’s Fun Park to provide proper safety measures (failure to ensure Ms. Taylor wore a helmet) and adequately supervise her zip-lining experience. This represents a violation of the responsibility to provide the care she was owed. iii. Causation: Due to Mr. Walter breaching his responsibility of not ensuring Ms. Taylor’s safety a causal relationship exists between the breach of the duty of care and the resulting injury to Ms. Taylor. In this case, the distraction caused by Mr. Walker's phone call directly led to Ms. Taylor not wearing a helmet, resulting in her fall and injuries. iv. Loss or Damages: Ms. Taylor sustained significant injuries, including fractures, a concussion, and substantial medical bills resulting in her clearly incurring actual loss of work and damage. Possible Defenses Miller’s Fun Park may raise the following defenses against Ms. Taylor's negligence claim: i. Assumption of Risk: Miller’s Fun Park may raise the argument that Ms. Taylor voluntarily assumed the risks associated with zip lining, including the inherent danger of falling. However, this defense can be weakened due to Mr. Walker’s lack of proper safety measures and instructions. ii. Waiver: Although Ms. Taylor signed a waiver and claimed she did not read it and could not recall its content, this may not absolve the park of liability if the waiver did not adequately inform her of the risks, and waivers are also subject to certain legal limitations. iii. Contributory or Comparative Negligence: Miller’s Fun Park may also assert that Ms. Taylor's consumption of alcoholic beverages before the zip-lining contributed to the accident. However, her level of intoxication at that time and its direct impact on her fall remain uncertain. Relevant Court Cases To better understand the potential outcome of Ms. Taylor's case, please see the three relevant court cases that are discussed below: i. Agosto v. SeaWorld Parks & Entm't, 2014 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 598: SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment appealed the prior trial and jury verdict in favor of Mr. Onix Agosto, Jr. where he was awarded damages for the injuries he sustained in his May 30, 2011 accident at their Sesame Place amusement park. The superior Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the jury that Mr. Agosto, Jr. established his prima facie case of negligence, and the jury verdict was supported by the evidence. Therefore, they concluded that the jury’s verdict should stand (Agosto v. SeaWorld Parks & Entm't, 2014). His demand was for $950,000; however, he was awarded $676,739.40 (Szostak & Bily, Park was wrong to allow aquatic shoes on waterslide: Patron ). 2

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