I was going to buy a pair of scissors the other day, but I didn't end up getting a pair of scissors. The issue in this case was that there were a few different options. What I really wanted was a full metal pair of scissors, and there were two types that were fabric scissors, and an office set, all of them all metal. I don't remember, but I didn't get a new pair of scissors.
What would I do with a new pair of scissors? I already have a pair of scissors? So what would I do with a new pair of scissors?
wulf v bravo brio restaurant group 2019
wulf is appealing
the summary judgement of the trial court the original
original was suit was for damages as a result from
negligent behavior 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 since the hazards themselves serve
as a warning
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
in the trial case, bravo brio presented the kitchen counter
where the servers and staff worked as an open and obvious
hazard, and that Roland Wulf assumed the risk of walking
closely behind the servers in this area.
but it wasn't the kitchen counter, a static hazard, that
caused Roland Wulf's injury, it was the activities of the
servers that caused the injury, and those activities, deemed
negligent in this case, were a dynamic hazard
the discussion around whether or not it was appropriate
for the trial court to grant a summary judgement in favor
of bravo brio takes up the majority of the appellate court's opinion,
the appellate court starts by defining when it is appropriate
for a court to grant summary judgment:
No comments:
Post a Comment