You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Finance & Accounting
Pages 5 (1255 words)
CHAPTER 5 CASE 4 1. I believe that the drugstore did owe a duty of care to Booker and all the other customers. It was imperative that it should maintain a safe environment or at least warn the customers about the possible dangers. My opinion is based on the following: Booker, as any other customer, may be considered a business invitee in the pharmacy.
In the case of Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985) it was held that a business invitee is entitled to "a duty of ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition so that its customers are not unnecessarily and unreasonably exposed to danger"2 from the owner. This means that an owner is obliged “to keep the premises free from dangers not discernible by a reasonably prudent person and to warn invitees of concealed dangers of which the owner knows or should know”3. Therefore, I strongly believe that the drugstore owed its visitors, including Booker, a duty of care to maintain a safe environment. 2. I believe that Booker’s lawsuit against the drugstore is based on negligence, and not upon allegations that the storeowners committed an international tort. International torts occur in those cases when the defendant actually has the intention of harming the plaintiff through his actions, like for example: assault, battery, trespass, fraud, etc. On the other hand, according to Stuhmcke A., “Negligence is a tort which determines legal liability for careless actions or inactions which cause injury.4 Therefore, in this case we are talking about negligence on behalf of the drugstore. 3. ...
Not exactly what you need?