Five Elements of the Tort of Negligence

Chapter 9 Problem 6 Assignment 2

To begin, there are five elements of the tort of negligence. The first element is the duty of

care. Duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they

adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably

harm others ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care) . According to the case, Mrs. Tom could argue that Kresge's letting customer drink while shopping was a foreseeable issue because spills do happen. So it would have been in the company's best interest to limit where customers could have beverages or do a sporadic check of the isles to make sure there weren't any wet spots. Mrs. Tom was in there store shopping when the injury occurred. So, I feel that Mrs. Tom could use this element to prove her case. She didn't go into there store with the intent of getting hurt so the company should compensate her for her injury. I work for a grocery chain and when a customer slips and falls in the store the store manager always make sure that they or okay. Also, if an ambulance needs to be called they do so and take care of all of the customer's bills from the accident.

The second element is breach of duty. Once the standard of care and the duty are established under element one, there must be a determination that the defendant fell short of that standard or breached that duty for the plaintiff to recover on the basis of negligence (Jennings, 2009, pg. 299). I think that the breach of duty is that the store didn't do random checks of the floors to make sure they were safe for the customers especially if they were going to allow them to drink beverages.

The third element is causation. Causation is the "but for" test-but for the action or lack of action of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been injured (Jennings,2009, pg 302). Mrs. Tom wouldn't have been injured if Kresge's had a sign up warning customers to watch there step when walking because customers can drink beverages throughout the store.

The fourth element is proximate cause. A proximate cause is the foreseeability requirement of causation (Jennings, 2009, pg 312). Because there was a spill on the floor Mrs. Tom was injured. Was this foreseeable in Mrs. Tom's case I don't think that there is enough information because anyone could have been injured.

The fifth element is damages. Damages are what a person claims due to someone's negligence. Such damages could include medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, as well as any property damages (Jennings,2009, pg. 305). Mrs. Tom can claim damages from her case because her accident happened in the store. So whatever medical bills she occurred or pain and suffer Mrs. Tom