This was interesting. before today. I had never upgraded the hardware for a computer. I added RAM to my laptops. I broke down and bought a new computer. This other super slow laptop that I have was really bad and it was really an actual problem, so I figured I would buy a new computer.
I placed an order a few days ago, but I didn't exactly understand what or I didn't fully understand what I bought, so I cancelled the order. Anyway, today I placed a new order directly with the manufacturer and I think that I will go ahead and commit to the order.
well, i ended up cancelling the second order as well. so i placed one order with a retailer, cancelled that one, then with a manufacturer, and cancelled that one. at this point i no longer really have a business case for a new computer, considering that the previous issue that I was facing, that my second laptop was really slow, is not longer an issue. and i resolved the issue at a significantly lower expense than I thought.
the computer that I was looking to purchase was a gaming computer, but I really don't need it at this point, i always thought of gaming computers as more expensive, but there is a class of computers that i never looked at before that's even more expensive, workstation and commercial class computers. I might keep looking, but, yeah i don't really know. i really feel like this issue is resolved.
then there is the exam situation. i have an exam this week, there is a window of time where i can do it, and i might just do it early. i'm going to put the case brief thing on the back burner for now. even though i feel like i'm falling behind, it's actually not due for another month. so i'll pivot to studying for my exams and then pivot back. plus there is something i've been wanting to try for a while on the 21st. so i'll look into that.
wulf v bravo brio restaurant group 2019
wulf appealing
summary judgement of the trial court
original suit was for damages as a result from
negligent behaviour of a bravo employee
facts
wulf was injured while dining at cucina italiana in
west chester ohio - he stated that while he was on his
way to the restroom a woman in a bravo uniform
backed into him, causing him to fall and break his hip
wulf also states that the woman apologized to him for
the accident, and that the woman acknowledged working
for the restaurant
wulf also mentioned that another person dining at the
restaurant mentioned witnessing the incident.
however, wulf was never able to specifically identify
and name the waitress who bumped into him and
that he only knew that it was a bravo employee's fault
because the woman in the bravo uniform said she
caused the issue
issues
is a plaintiff required to specifically identify and name
a negligent employee for the doctrine of respondeat superior
to apply
what types of hazards does the open and obvious doctrine
apply to
was it appropriate for the trial court to grant a summary judgement
in favor of the defendant bravo brio restaurant group
rule
the doctrine of respondeat superior does
not require that an employee be specifically
identified and named for an employer to be deemed
liable for the negligent behavior of an employee
the open and obvious doctrine applies to static hazards
and not dynamic hazards
the trial court granting a summary judgement in favor of
the defendant was not appropriate
application
the appellate court ruled that an employee only need
to be identified as an employee and to have been acting
within the scope of employment for the employer to be
held liable for the negligent behaviour of an employee
the employee does not need to be specifically
identified and named as a party to the suit
for the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply
the appellate court noted that bravo brio cited
cases regarding respondeat superior where the
negligent employees happened to be named and
specifically identified
however the cases cited did not establish that
a negligent employee must be named and
specifically identified
the cases only established that an employee must
be identified as an employee and acting within
the scope of employment
it was determined that it was sufficient to establish
liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior
that the woman who apologized for causing wulf's
fall was wearing a bravo uniform, and that she
acknowledged working for the bravo restaurant.
the appellate court then discussed the open and obvious
doctrine and stated that there are two distinct types of hazards
static and dynamic hazards,
which create two distinct
and separate duties that the premises
owner has with respect to it's business invitees
negligence claims related to static hazards are related to the
duty of the owner of the premises has with respect to maintaining
the business premises in a reasonably safe condition and
warning invitees of dangers that they wouldn't generally
be aware of
open and obvious hazards serve as a warning
to business invitees
as a result of their open and obvious nature
and the premises owner has no duty to warn
the open and obvious doctrine does not apply
to dynamic hazards
negligence claims related to dynamic hazards
are related to the active duty a premises owner has
to not to expose an invitee through act or omission
to negligent activities conducted on the premises
conclusion
the case was reversed and remanded
considering that there is no case history after the 2019
decision, the professor mentioned that it is possible
the case was settled
No comments:
Post a Comment