Corporate Law: Case Mr. Darrow
The case discusses a series of events that led Mr. Darrow to receive several injuries. He received a different level of physical harm in each of the three places that he visited in one day. Places of the visit were both company-owned or private. The question of the case is whether Mr. Darrow can sue property owners for keeping their grounds in a way that caused his traumas.
We will write a custom Essay on Corporate Law: Mr. Darrow’ Case specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The issue that can be presented by Mr. Darrow to the court is whether the property owners had the liability to keep their grounds suitable for visitors by monitoring a security level and following safety guidelines. The first place was a supermarket, where the administration translated a message that caused a group of people to rush and hit Mr. Darrow accidentally. Thus, the issue is whether the supermarket’s administration is liable for it regarding safety violations. Second place, a farmer’s market, had the warning signs of the slippery floor, yet Mr. Darrow did not manage to keep his balance and got a trauma. Finally, there is a question of whether he can sue Mr. Wilde for not taking care of his house since he knew about the problem, yet did not bother to let Mr. Darrow know about it.
The law that should be referenced in this case is the one associated with the liability of property owners to prevent injuries to people. Three categories apply, which are invitees, trespassers, and licensees. The first and third event includes Mr. Darrow as an invitee, while the second one mentions him as a licensee. Property owners’ liabilities towards invitees include protecting them from hazardous situations, both known and unknown. If a hazardous situation is difficult to predict, common sense should help to identify potential dangers. Liabilities to licensees include only the protection from the known hazards.
The supermarket apparently did not comply with the rule of preventing harm to its visitors. A situation when its administration gave an announcement over the loudspeaker offering benefits to first people who would appear in a certain place was evidence of poor analysis. Predicting human behavior is an element of identifying unknown hazardous situations in a store. The farmer’s market had warning signs on its territory mentioning that the floor is wet and asking people to be careful. Mr. Darrow could expect to be warned only about known dangers as a licensee, and this condition was fully supported by the farmer’s market administration. Thus, there should be no complaints from Mr. Darrow’s side. Finally, Mr. Wilde had the liability to protect his guest from injuries. However, he failed to both warn Mr. Darrow about the danger and to fix his property according to the safety regulations, which eventually led to serious trauma that could result in a loss of productivity.
Mr. Darrow has the right to sue the supermarket for not being able to ensure his safety by predicting a potentially hazardous situation. Besides, he also has a possibility to sue Mr. Wilde for being aware of the danger that his property posed to visitors and doing nothing about it. Supermarket administration could use the inability to predict human behavior as a point of defense, yet Mr. Wilde does not have any factors supporting his position. However, there should be no claims against the farmer’s market since it had warning signs. Besides, one of the staff members there helped Mr. Darrow, which was not an obligation.