Mark sued a bank for injuries. He was not paying attention as he entered the ban

Question

Mark sued a bank for injuries. He was not paying attention as he entered the bank because he was looking at his phone. And he fell suffering $10,000 in injuries. Prior to the fall, the janitor had buffed the floor. The janitor had an IQ of 70. Normally, the janitor was closely supervised. However, today his manager was extremely tired, and the manager didn’t notice that the janitor had carelessly used way too much floor wax that was extremely slippery. Is the bank liable for the janitor’s negligence (be sure to go through all the elements.) Additionally, note that under the doctrine of respondeat superior the bank WILL be liable for any potential negligence of the janitor employee? What defenses will the bank assert? Assume that the jurisdiction does not recognize assumption of risk or contributory negligence. The jurisdiction does recognize the defense of comparative negligence.

Explanation / Answer

Explanation:

In this case Bank is liable for the injuries of the Mark as, first element of negligence that is duty of due care towards plaintiff required by the defendant which defendant fail to perform as they could put sign board that could warn customer about ‘slippery floor ahead’. Bank breach that duty by failing to warn customers and there is actual cause between resulting harm to Mark’s injuries. Fourth element which explain whether the harm could be foreseeable, yes that is easily said that actions could have been stopped by duty of due care and fifth element of negligence which says that there are damages to plaintiff by conduct of defendant. Bank could have easily stop that damages, if superior was not that much lazy to ignore that huge mistake by janitor.

Under doctrine of respondeat superior bank would be liable for negligence as janitor was their employee and bank is responsible because Janitor was hired by them and he cannot pay that much damages by himself. Also the janitor was doing the work of Bank so there applies rule of Master- Servant.

Bank can defend themselves by giving attention to action of Mark, as he was talking in phone and did not paid needed attention on floor, so he is partially responsible as per the defense of Bank.

If jurisdiction recognize the comparative negligence in this case than Mark would have to bear some of the expenses because at some extent he was also liable by looking at his phone and not giving attention ot slippery floor which caused him injuries.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse M
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.