Legal Duty Of The Store

1804 Words8 Pages
Due to the store not being able to maintain the premises safe without proper use of safety precautions to warn people. This would go under premises and operations coverage, where there is liability due to conditions in or arising from the premises. If the store is not able to maintain safety while it is operating then it is still liable for the injuries and can be sued by Raj. In order for an act to be considered negligent it must have four elements to it. This includes: (1) legal duty of care – there is a legal duty to protect others from harm if there is an absence of it, then there is a legal wrong. (2) A failure to perform that duty by an act or a failure to act (3) claimant suffers damages to his or her property and/or bodily injury or death. These can be for special damages (losses that can be determined and documented) and general damages (for losses that cannot be determined and documented e.g. pain) (4) proximate cause where relationships must exists where there is no broken chain of events between negligent act and infliction of damages. In this case a reasonable person would have warned others of there being a wet floor and in this case there was no sign. This is a negligent act causing Raj to fall and injure them self as a result. Had the staff member put the sign down to warn customers about there being a wet floor, Raj would have had not been hit by the child as he was walking to make a complaint. 2. Due to Mindy being in one spot and not moving the driver

More about Legal Duty Of The Store

Open Document