Ralph's Market: A Legal Case Study

The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.

Pam took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

(the defendant). Cruz’s parents sent an email to Fagor on the date of the occurrence detailing said incident, and the defendant responded by denying liability. Cruz filed a complaint against Fagor alleging causes of action for negligence and product liability. Through his attorney, Cruz mailed the summons and complaint addressed to the company’s Chairman of the Board through certified mail requesting a return receipt. The receipt indicated that the envelope was accepted and signed for by an individual at the company headquarters, but Fagor failed to file an answer or make any appearance until after the plaintiff had entered a motion for a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant filed a motion to set aside the entry of default and the default judgment, which the court granted on the grounds that there was no proof that the summons and complaint:

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

Case Review: Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993)

Yes, the plaintiff properly filed the complaint within the time period of three-year statute of limitations required by the state of South Dakota, to sue against Walmart, Inc. For this reason the plaintiff have the litigation to sue Walmart for the defective design and the trauma the plaintiff suffered when the toy watercraft exploded it. Therefore, the Walmart assistant manager Josh Hehn, who were physically available at the time of service need to respond to the court order to appear in court to answer the complaint made by the plaintiff. In addiction, the Walmart designated agent, who accept service of process for South Dakota lawsuit, need to answer the allegations

Renee McDonald (“Plaintiff”) allegedly sustained personal injuries on October 8, 2015 while shopping at a store owned and operated by Costco (“Defendant”) in Brooklyn Park, Maryland. According to the plaintiff, while walking through the store, she tripped on mop water which caused her to fall to the ground and suffer “severe bodily injuries.” The Plaintiff claims that her fall was caused by the mop water. The mopped area had been secured with a yellow caution sign that warned customers of the wet floor. At the time of the Plaintiff’s fall, however, the sign had fallen down and was lying on the floor. Plaintiff alleges that the store did not have proper signage to warn of the hazardous condition.

“Trader Joe’s has designed jobs to increase job satisfaction by showing appreciation in providing more benefits to their employees than other chain grocers. They provide starting benefits including medical, dental, and vision insurance, company-paid retirement, paid vacation, and a 10% employee discount, Pg. w-100.” Traders Joes also recruits people with certain personality traits that the company wants in their stores. They are able to enrich their employees with knowledge of their products that they are selling, as well as inducing customer involvements. As a result, they are able to have higher job performance because they are able to train and

Studmaster Pty Ltd was a landlord that owned a shopping complex in Bourke Street, Melbourne. Mrs Tran operated the “Vietnamese Lunch Box” outlet in the food court. She had little ability to speak or read English, which the representatives for Studmaster knew about. Studmaster proposed a three year renewal of her lease at $48,000 per annum plus GST for the first year and CPI increments in the second and third years.

Ms. Liebeck hired attorney, Reed Morgan, to help her with the situation. It is important to understand legal warranties and product liability to fully grasp the legal mechanics of the Liebeck v. McDonald's case. "Products liability refers to the liability incurred by a seller of goods when the goods, because of a defect in them, cause personal injury or property damage to the buyer, a user, or a third party" (Oswald, 2011, p. 365). "A warranty is a contractual promise by a seller or lesser that the goods that he sells or leases confirm to certain standards, qualities, or characteristics" (Oswald, 2011, p. 356). According to Enghagen and Gilardi (2002), "personal-injury tort cases are regulated by the individual states" (p. 55). "Typically,

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.