Business 140 Take Home Examination Randy and Laura, a newly engaged couple, had taken a trip to the local Warehouse in preparation for a trip they have been both planning. Unfortunately while Laura was searching for the perfect ski jacket, a display of cooking stoves fell from the above sky shelves. Laura is not the first to have been injured, or killed by department store sky shelves. However, not only was she a victim of corporate greed, and there lack of safety, but also a victim of theft. Laura was pictured walking into the Warehouse with a diamond necklace, and a ruby and diamond ring which was never brought back to her possession after the incident. As Randy’s friend, he has asked me to assist him on what legal theories he can utilize …show more content…
Campers Discount Warehouse: The Discount Warehouse duty to act with reasonable care was breached because they cooking stoves where not placed properly, which resulted in it falling on Laura. If the Discount Warehouse were more cautious on how they stack there merchandise Laura would have suffered no harm. Since the Warehouse was negligent, it resulted in Laura having a loss of consortium, meaning physical intimacy, loss of enjoyment of life, wage/income. Also Laura has the costs of medical expenses, living with the disability, and mental distress. Laura v. Hospital: I would advise Laura to sue the hospital for negligence, and damages since she lost her valuable engagement gifts (necklace and ring). The hospital’s duty to act with reasonable care was breached. They should’ve made sure all her belongings where returned. Also, if they ambulance attendants are to blame for her missing personal belongs then the hospital should’ve been more prudent with the type of staff they hire. Laura v. ambulance attendants: I would sue the ambulance attendants for negligence and damages as well. The ambulance attendants were not ORP because they failed to make sure Laura’s belongings where returned. I would question if the ambulance attendants had criminal behavior, or