You are on page 1of 3

Dr.

Jennifer Smith’s Accounting 568-01W “Business Law for Accountants”


Week 3 Homework

Case Brief: Dick’s Sporting Goods v. Webb

Facts:
Betty Webb went shopping at Dick's Sporting Goods. Inside the store were mats covering the tile
floor, in between the mats were a puddle of water. Webb stepped on to the outside of the mats, to
a nearby tile (which she believed was dry). However, the tile was wet and Webb fell, injuring
herself.

Procedural History:
Trial court ruled in favor of Dick's Sporting Goods, Webb appealed.

Issue:
Was Webb injured as a result of an Open–and–Obvious Hazard? Did Dick's Sporting Goods
maintain a reasonably safe premises for its patrons?

Decisions (Holding):
The Court of Appeals reversed judgment for Dick's Sporting Goods and remanded the case for
trail.

Reasons:
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Dick's Sporting Goods did not maintain a reasonably safe
premises for its patrons. Dick's Sporting Goods although aware of the water accumulation and
slipping hazard did not do enough to prevent harm to Webb. Central to courts ruling was
reviewing the case of Phelan v. State. In the case it was reasoned that a “landowner's duty to
maintain property in a reasonably safe condition is not obviated; it merely negates the
requirement to warn of such a condition.” In essence, Dick's Sporting Goods knew there was a
hazard (by placing mats to prevent a known water/slipping hazard) but did not take full measure
to protect and prevent harm to Webb (such as mopping water in the surround area up).
Case Brief: Dyer v. Maine Drilling and Blasting

Facts:
in connection with a construction project, Maine Drilling and Blasting distributed notices that
informed the Dyers that the company would conduct rock blasting activities near the home on or
about October 1, 2004. As a result of the blasting activities Vera Dyer and her sons, Paul and
Robert discovered Vera’s home was damaged due to the seismic shocks by Maine Drilling and
Blasting.

Procedural History:
The Dyers pleaded strict liability and their claim was dismissed on that count as well concerning
a count of negligence.

Issue:
Under modern interpretation of strict liability should Maine Drilling and Blasting activities that
caused damage be excused due to the inherent danger of blasting that cannot be eliminated even
with the exercise of care? And in regard to negligence, The Dyers' expert testified that blasting
may cause damage even when it is within the Bureau of Mines's guidelines, however Maine and
several dozen other states note that blasting is inherently dangerous, but was Maine Drilling and
Blasting activities’ ultra-hazardous and abnormally dangerous activity and they did not exercise
enough care to prevent damage?

Decisions (Holding):
The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the lower court’s judgment. The Supreme Judicial
Court of Maine found that the Dyers did prove that Maine Drilling and Blasting’s seismic
activity exceeded limitations issued by the state regulatory bodies (Bureau of Mines). Based on
the evidence, the Supreme Court also gave permission for the Dyers’ to proceed on negligence
and ‘res ipsa loquitur’ (the principle that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence)
theories of recovery.
Facts:
The events happened in the state of Nevada, where the plaintiff, Margaret Oakes ate at
Defendant Carrabba's Italian Grill. Her meal was a pasta dish that included mussels served in
their shells. Oakes eventually choked on a mussel shell fragments. Oakes had two surgeries to
remove the shell fragment. Oakes then filed suit against Carrabba's alleging claims for (1)
negligence, (2) strict products liability, and (3) violation of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Procedural History:
Plaintiff Carrabba's requested summary judgment on all 3 of Oakes' claims, The U.S. District
Court denied Carrabba's motion for summary judgment.

Issue:
Carrabba’s. the moving party must prove that the nonmoving party's claim (Oakes) “does not
have enough evidence of an essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial”
(per Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos).

Decisions (Holding):
Carrabba’s motion for summary judgment for all the 3 claims was denied by the district court.
Negligence must be measured by the merits Carrabba's took in preparing Oakes’ meal. This
would be based on factual and relevant evidence to be determined in a trial. Strict products
liability summary judgment was denied due to the fact Nevada has 3 tests for merchantability of
a product or service. It was unknown to the district court which tests would be used to test if a
mussel shell fragment in a pasta dish containing mussels results in a defect for strict liability
purposes, under the 3 tests. Violation of an implied warranty of merchantability summary
judgment was denied, based on the 3 test of merchantability. Carrabba's pleaded that shell
fragment was natural to the dish and that Oakes should have reasonably expected that shell
fragments could possibly have been in her dish (Oakes argued the exact contrary positon). The
district court reasoned it is up to a jury to decide if a shell fragments in a dish containing whole
shells is "natural”, based on the evidence and facts displayed in trial.

You might also like