The Mundane Situations of Chestnut + Hazel # 6

There is something called a MIC code, or a market identifier code. There is apparently a stock exchange outside of Kansas City, in Lenexa.

I'm kind of running out of steam as far as writing my autobiography goes, and running out of steam in terms of writing generally. I'm going to get that presentation done.

Right now I'm working on my Case Brief Presentation, and I'm having kind of a hard time. This is only supposed to be a five minute video, but I've already had several hours worth of outtakes. I really wanted to get this done yesterday, but I didn't even start yesterday.

I remember the case brief itself taking longer to complete than I wanted it too, even though it is only a 2 page document.

I'm going to write it down first:

The case that I'm presenting it Wulf V. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, 2019

the parties to the case are The estate of Roland Wulf

and

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Incorporated

according to wulf he was on his way to the restroom

when a someone bumped into him

The Case that

This is an absolute mouthful. I'm finding some of these words hard to pronounce, maybe not individually, but due to proximity. Like, I'm finding it hard to pronounce west chester ohio right after saying cucina italiana.

I made like 100 videos for my presentation and a lot of them fell flat, or - well what would happen is I would lose my train of thought after 30 seconds, 60 seconds, 90 seconds, 120 second, and so on. I was getting better, but it wa frustrating progress.

I almost bought another laptop. I felt like I kind of needed one, but I cancelled the order not to long after placing it. I need one, but now. for now I'm just going to hold off on that.

the case that I'm presenting is 

Wulf v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group

Incorporated 

2019

The parties to case are 

 

The estate of roland wulf

and

Bravo Brio restaurant Group, Incorporated

in this case

The estate of roland wulf is appealing

a trial court summary judgement decision

in favor of bravo brio restaurant group

the facts of the original case are that

roland wulf suffered an injury while dining

at cucina italiana

in west chester ohio

according to wulf

he was on his way to the restroom

when someone bumped into him,

he ended up falling and breaking his hip

wulf said that he did not see who bumped into him

nor did he see the incident

but he states that when he got up

a woman in a bravo uniform

apologized for bumping into him.

the issues in this case are

the doctrine of respondeat superior, and 

whether or not an employee

needs to be specifically identified

in order for an employer to be held liable for

the negligent behavior of an employee

the open and obvious doctrine, and

how static hazards are distinct from dynamic

hazards

and whether or not it was appropriate for the trial court

to grant a summary judgement in favor of bravo brio restaurant group

The appellate court ruled

that an employee does not need to be specifically identified

to establish liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior

that the open and obvious doctrine applies strictly to static hazards

and that the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of

bravo brio was not appropriate

in the appellate court's opinion, powell writes that 

it is 

not necessary for a plaintiff to name or specifically identify an

employee for liability to be established under the doctrine of 

respondeat superior

the appellate court points out that in the cases cited by

bravo brio, the employees happen to be identified, but the cases

cited did not establish that negligent employees must be identified

and the appellate court also found no compelling reason to establish

such a requirement

 

the appellate court also ruled that

the open and obvious doctrine only applies to static hazards 

and that a separate duty exists related to dynamic hazards, and that

duty is a duty not to conduct and expose invitees to negligent activities.