Part 1:
Samantha Smith-Slip and Fall Memorandum
To:
From:
Date: 2/1/2014
Re: Samantha Smith

Facts
Samantha Smith was in her local grocery store shopping with her son. While shopping in the shower isle, Samantha slipped and fell in a clear gel that had leaked out of one of the bottles. When she fell she suffered a broken hip and now has to have months of physical therapy to recover. The store has an employee that checks the aisle every hour at the top of the hour. The employee in charge of the inspection that day was an older gentleman with glasses. The last logged inspection was at 1:00 p.m. Samantha slipped and fell at about 1:30 p.m. Samantha is stating that the store was negligent and at fault, and is seeking compensatory damages for her injuries.
Issue
Whether the store is at fault for the injuries sustained by Samantha and therefore owe damages to Samantha.
Answer
Yes, the store is at fault. It is their duty to insure reasonable care towards the safety of its customers.
Rule
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-5 (West 2013).
Discussion
Indiana is a modified comparative fault state. § 34-51-2-5, states that you can collect compensatory damages as long as you are fifty percent or less at fault than the other party involved. A judge, jury at trial or an insurance company determines the level of liability or fault as a percentage for each party. Once the percentage is determined, it is applied to any possible damages (the jury’s verdict or the insurance claim limits). The plaintiff’s percentage of fault is deducted from the awarded damages. An older gentleman with glasses will not be able to see a clear gel spilled on the floor as well as a younger employee without glasses. Though Samantha was distracted by her two year old son, there is comparative fault on the part of both, the store and Samantha, as per the comparative fault statute. The store knowing that