Case Study Research Essay Example for Free

Case theatre Research EssayCase One Barsz v. Max Shapiro, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 600 N.E.2d 151 (1992) Fact Marjorie Barsz brought negligence action against Shapiros deli Cafeteria to recover for personal injuries sustained when she slipped and fell, breaking her right ankle and left knee cap. Her husband, Carl Barsz brought action against the restaurant for loss of consortium with his wife due to Mrs. Barszs injuries. The Circuit tap of Shelby County granted summary ruling for the restaurant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District held that sure-enough(prenominal) issues of sensible facts existed and reversed the summary judgment. Issue Was Shapiros delicatessen Cafeteria negligent in identifying and remedying the condition of the stand in the restaurant, causing Marjorie Barszs accident? Rule GOLBA v. KOHLS DEPT. STORE, INC. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992)Analysis To avoid summary judgment, Marjorie Barsz had to show that there was a defective condition in the floor of the restaurant which caused her slip and fall, and that the restaurant unreasonably failed to discover and remedy the hazardous condition. Genuine material facts existed which precluded summary judgment for the restaurant. Summary judgment is generally inappropriate in negligence cases. Trial map Rule 56(C) Conclusion A restaurant cannot be held strictly liable for a fall that occurred ahead having a reasonable chance to remove a foreign substance from its floor restaurant as not the absolute guarantor of customer safety. However, summary judgment cannot be granted when a genuine material fact exists.Case Two Golba v. Kohls Dept. ancestry, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992) Facts Plaintiff Stella Golba brought negligence action against suspect Kohls Department Store stemming from a slip and fall accident. Ms. Golba stepped on a small object glass on a glossy floor, causing her to trip and fall. The floor had only been swept once on the morning of the accident. The Circuit Court of Starke County granted the stores motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District held that material issues of fact existed and reversed the summary judgment. Issue Was Kohls Department Store negligent in maintaining their floors in a safe condition for patrons? Rule BURRELL v. MEADS Ind. 569 N.E.2d 637 (1991)Analysis A priming coat owner is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the get to if, but only if, he knows or exercising reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it is an unlogical risk of harm to invitees, and should expect that they will not realize the danger, or will not entertain themselves against it, and fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Normally, determining whether the host has exercised reasonable care to make their expound safe for an invitee is a question of fact for a jury. Conclusion Sweeping of a floor only once in the morning does not constitute exercise of reasonable care to block injury to customers from objects left in the floor. The issue of fact as to whether the store had notice of the object in the floor precluded a summary judgment.