preview

Medcalf V. Goodvalue Case

Decent Essays

Medcalf v Goodvalue

• Mr Medcalf’s Goals:

Essential terms (that Mr Medcalf has to obtain):

1) Future medical expenses as a result of his injuries - $371,520;

- Mr Medcalf wants more than $20,000;

Basis for calculation:

Mr Medcalf is now 67 years old. Based on an expected life expectancy of a further 20 years:

Hospital Room (20 days per year for 20 years) = $900 * 10 *20 = $180,000

Visits to the Doctor (Once a week @$100 per visit for 20 years) = $104,000

X-Rays ($142 per visit and 4 visits per year (each quarter) for 20 years) = $11,360

Emergency Room Care ($302 per visit and 4 visits per year (each quarter) for 20 years) = $24,160 …show more content…

In this case, because he saw no one, he walked to his car;

3) Mr Medcalf always drove his car to the store at night (even though he lives only 3 blocks from Goodvalue) – as a protection against criminal attack.

Goodvalue did not then and does not presently assign the security guard to patrol the parking lot

- In Butler v Acme Markets, Inc 89 N.J. 270, 445 A.2d. 1141 (1982), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that:

(1) it was for jury to determine if store exercised reasonable care in performance of its duty to safeguard its business invitees from criminal acts of third persons;

(2) it was at least reasonable for jury to determine that, absent warnings, hiring one guard who primarily remained inside store was an insufficient response to known, repeated history of attacks on premises; and

(3) business invitor is in best position to provide either warnings or adequate protection for its patrons when risk of injury is relevant.

Goodvalue did not then and does not presently post any warning signs or take other steps to warn customers of the danger of criminal attack

-Goodvalue did not exercise reasonable care in response to known attacks on the premises (8 reported attacks in the 18 months before the incident involving Mr

Get Access