Question

A company operated a small amusement park on property it owned near a residential neighborhood. On a day when the park was closed, a 10-year-old girl snuck into the park with some friends by climbing over a chain link fence. While climbing on one of the carnival rides, the girl slipped and cut her leg on an exposed gear assembly, sustaining serious injuries. Through her guardian ad litem, the girl brought suit against the company to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, she presented evidence of the accident and her injuries. In defense, the company established that the girl read and understood the "No Trespassing" signs that were attached to the fence. The company also established that it had not had any previous reports of children sneaking into the park when it was closed. Before submission of the case to the jury, the company moved for summary judgment. Is the court likely to grant the company’s motion?

Answer 1

Answer:

Yes

Explanation:

There was a warning before the snuck into the park, the company did not expect that children would want to snuck into the park that is why they created those barriers that injuries her. Am sure the company already has a permit to actually place the sign in the park to notify the public of the there rules, so it is to the detriment of the girl because there was a warning sir and based on the evidence the company presented, the court with grant them what they wish.

Answer 2

Answer:

The answer for this exercise is:

No, the jury wouldn't grant the company's a motion.

Explanation:

First of all, we need to analyze the factors presented. The company didn't have enough measures to establish strong protection to prevent intrusions. Even though this might seems out of logical thinking. The company can't defend itself by saying that the trespassing notice was enough to prevent this kind of situation. And because it didn't have enough security mechanisms it would not be allowed a motion.