Recently a group of people ages 19-20, went to the rooftop of a building under c
ID: 452978 • Letter: R
Question
Recently a group of people ages 19-20, went to the rooftop of a building under construction to drink some beer and enjoy the view. Tragically, one of the young women stepped through an opening where there had once been a skylight. She did not survive the fall. The property was surrounded by a fence, with NO TRESPASSING signs present. However, there was no lock on the gate. There was a temporary barricade to the entrance of the building, but it was not fully in place. Once inside the building, the stairway to the roof was open and not blocked in any way. The family of the deceased girl is suing the owners of the building, claiming Negligence. A) Please discuss the elements of the tort of negligence, which the plaintiff must prove to win the case. B) Do you think each of the elements is present? C) Are there any Defenses which the property owners can argue? D) How would you rule if you were a Juror ?Explanation / Answer
A) Please discuss the elements of the tort of negligence, which the plaintiff must prove to win the case.
B) Do you think each of the elements is present?
Only the element of duty to take care and breach of duty to take is applicable in this case, as there was gross negligence on part of the property owner, of not placing “No Tresspasser” sign, not having proper fencing and no lock on the stairway.
C) Are there any Defenses which the property owners can argue?
The property owner can argue under the theory of strict liability, that plaintiff was undiscovered trespasser.
D) How would you rule if you were a Juror
If I were a juror, I’d hold the property owner guilty on count of negligence, but not liable for the accident, as the plaintiff was an adult, and being an undiscovered trespasser, hold no legal right for claiming any liability from property owner.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.