Question

Kim went to ling's market to pick up a few items for dinner. it was a stormy day, and the wind had blown water through the market's door each time it opened. as kim entered through the door, she slipped and fell in the rainwater that had accumulated on the floor. the manager knew of the weather conditions but had not posted any sign to warn customers of the water hazard. "it's raining, people know it's wet and they have to be careful when they walk," he said. kim injured her back as a result of the fall and sued ling's for damages. can ling's be held liable for negligence, and/or intentional tort, and/or strict liability? discuss. how and why would a court likely rule?

Answer 1

According to my conclusion, Ling's can be blamed for carelessness. By definition, a tort of carelessness happens when somebody endures damage on account of another's inability to surrender over to a required obligation of care. In our case, by owning an open space, the administration is at risk to ensure that clients and workers have a protected domain. The supervisor realized that the water on the floor may be a potential safety risk and did not take any measures to caution the client. So, this way, the chief broke the obligation of care. Kim endured legitimately unmistakable damage (in the event that she got a specialist's note) caused by the director's carelessness.