Costco Case Study

The shopkeeper’s privilege does not protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of the case. Although Navarro had the right to exercise shopkeeper’s privilege, Navarro had not enough evidence to consider Cockrell as a suspect and it is not reasonable that Navarro asked Cockrell to take off the bandage. According to the merchant protection statutes, merchants can stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being held liable for false imprisonment if (1) there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion, (2) suspects are detained for only reasonable time, and (3) investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner (Cheeseman, 2015, P.87). Navarro was not fulfilled for the third condition because the investigation is unreasonable on putting the suspect in a risk of death. Since there was a risk of bacterial infection and it may cause death after the wound area exposed under the air, Navarro should

The plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, is represented as the “Individual Responsibility Narrative,” alluding to the fact that the spilling of the McDonald’s coffee was her doing, and therefore should be liable for the damages caused by the spill. Meanwhile McDonald’s, the defendant, narrative is named “Defective Products Liability.” In short, it takes a counteractive stance; though the initial cause was Ms.Liebeck’s fault, their faulty product and lack of warning makes them responsible for her injuries.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.

Negligence under general action is the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a duty, a breach in that duty, causation, and damages in that duty. However, Mississippi is known as a Comparative negligence state. Under MS Law §52:68 which states; In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, or where such injuries have resulted in death, or for injury to property, the fact that the person injured,

Q.S.E. Foods, Inc., 60 Ill. 2d 552 (1975). The widow filed a negligence action against the store owner. The complaint alleged that the store owner negligently failed to provide adequate lighting in a darkened exterior area of the store. The complaint further alleged that, as a direct result of the store owner's negligence, burglars concealed themselves on the store premises and ambushed the decedent, a police officer, while he was in the process of conducting a security check at the rear of the store. The trial court dismissed the suit for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court reversed and remanded to the trial court. The store owner appealed and the court reversed. The court noted that the decedent, who was on the premises in the performance of his duty, was owed the same duty of care of care which the store owner owed to an invitee. The court concluded that the risk to which the decedent police officer was subjected to because of the conditions on the premises was not an unreasonable risk for a police officer. The court concluded that there were no allegations that established a duty on the store owner to use reasonable care for the protection of the

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

and injuring the Plaintiff with no warning, breaching the reasonably established agreement how the Plaintiff was to help only with Transporting of said Household items, with the Plaintiff’s Truck and Trailer only. Defendant Benny Hans Sorensen’s Negligent instructions and the Defendant Gaden Griffin’s Negligent Actions caused the Plaintiff’s Permanent Damages, adding injury to the Plaintiff’s existing Disability, with no care and lack of consideration of Plaintiff’s injury, especially immediately after the Plaintiff’s injury while the Plaintiff was moaning and complaining about how heavy the said 330 lbs Appliance was and walking in circles and holding his back, neck, and shoulder. The Defendants’ gross actions and negligent actions

Plaintiff Jeanette Myles (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 23, 2013, she fell into an open manhole in front of the property located at 4274 Foote Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. She claims that as a result of the fall, she incurred injuries, continuous pain, suffering and mental anguish, substantial medical expenses and lost time from work. Ms. Myles demands $100,000 in damages plus interest and costs.

Debra McCann and two of her children (Jillian, and Jonathan) were shopping in Bangor, Maine Wal-Mart on December 11th, 1996. After about an hour and a half, the McCann’s paid for their purchases and proceeded to leave the store. On the way out two Wal-Mart employees (Jean Taylor and Karla Hughes) blocked their path to the exit and stood in front of the McCann’s’ shopping cart. Note Taylor may have actually put her hand on the cart. The employees told McCann that her child had previously stolen from the store and was not allowed in the store. Defendant’s employees told McCann they were calling the police. Defendant did not actually

The details in the McDonald's v. Stella Liebeck case are very similar to the details of the case in Class Action. However, the legal knowledge surrounding the cases were different. For example, in Class Action the company Argo knowingly put out a defective car because it was more financially convenient to pay for settlements than it would have been to recall every single vehicle and fix them. Similarly, McDonald's was aware that their coffee was held at very hot temperature standards that were extremely dangerous to their unknowing customers. McDonald’s argued on the basis that consumers preferred hot coffee so it was good for profit (Haltom, McCann 2004). A McDonald's safety consultant testified that they received 700 complaints of burns

Based on misrepresentation, Val Porter gave Kolchek the manufacturer’s paperwork intending to induce Kolchek reliance on the manufacturer’s paperwork resulting in reckless disregard for the facts of the spa defects. Val Porter failed to explain any foreseeable injuries the spa may have caused. Great Lakes Spa failed to exercise “due care” to make the spa safe, resulting in the injury of Litisha’s finger. Based on Negligence, “due care” must

It was discovered that there were many reports of serious burns from McDonald’s coffee and thus McDonalds was guilty of negligence and punitive damages. Leibeck went to court to get her medical expenses covered and to get McDonalds to lower their coffee to a reasonable temperature and although in addition to medical compensation she was awarded 2.8 million it was reduced to $640000 by the trial judge. The common misconception of what Leibeck was after and what she was awarded gave those supporting tort reform, which is largely organizations like the chamber of commerce acting in the interests of large corporations, a new way to convince people of the benefits of tort reform and caps on damages. In addition to spending copious amounts of money and time on tort reform, large businesses are using other forms of legal restriction such as mandatory arbitration clauses. These are fine print contracts, which most people agree to without reading when buying products, designed to force the consumer to give up rights to fight negligence and tort cases in a civil court, which is the only area of the law where individuals can have an equal chance of

This case did not come to a surprise to me at all. I deal with these kinds of situations at work once in a while. I due believe that Ms. Tom does have a valid case against the Kresge store. I would say these types of cases are usually settled when it comes to corporations that have many chains. They almost never want these lawsuits to become public and will likely settle the matter. The store should also have an insurance company that would cover the expenses. The store is liable for any incidents that happen on their property. To prevent this from happening in the future the store should have team members that walk around the store and identify hazardous situations and use the proper equipment to flag customers and warn them. At my work anytime something spills the department will page the manager on duty and the situation is resolved quickly. We use caution triangles to notify customers and employees there is a possible safety hazard, we also have an employee stand by the hazard and caution customers as they walk

Costco’s does not pay it’s employee too much. It does make sense for Costco to compensate its employee so much bettter than Wal-Mart/Sam Club. Good compensation for employee is another business strat gy that Costco has employed in order to be set apart from their rivals and also to be able to win a sustainable competitive advantage.