Case Study Research Essay

Case One: Barsz v. Max Shapiro, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 600 N.E.2d 151 (1992) Fact: Marjorie Barsz brought negligence action against Shapiro’s Delicatessen 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. Barsz’s injuries. The Circuit Court of Shelby County granted summary judgment for the restaurant, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District held that genuine issues of material facts existed and reversed the summary judgment. Issue: Was Shapiro’s Delicatessen Cafeteria negligent in identifying and remedying the condition of the floor in the restaurant, causing Marjorie Barsz’s accident? Rule: GOLBA v. KOHL’S 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 Procedure Rule 56(C) Conclusion: A restaurant cannot be held strictly liable for a fall that occurred before 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. Kohl’s Dept. Store, Inc. Ind. Ct. App. 585 N.E.2d 14 (1992) Facts: Plaintiff Stella Golba brought negligence action against defendant Kohl’s Department Store stemming from a slip and fall accident. Ms. Golba stepped on a small object 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 store’s 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 Kohl’s 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 land owner is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he knows or exercising reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it is an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, and should expect that they will not realize the danger, or will not protect 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 premises 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 prevent 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.