A. Beyond the merits of the case, the chances of Edie in winning this case depend completely on the investigation of the behaviour of the defendant as the reasonable person in the similar conditions. This approach is regarded as the main pillar of the tort law that is used for the determination of the liability between the parties during legal proceedings. With that, it should be noted that there are several cases when the applicant faces difficulties in proving fault for slip and fail accidents. There are several conditions that should be met established and proved in order to find the presence of negligence. With the purposes to confirm the availability of the negligence on behalf of business unit or any other organization for the appearance of slip and fall accident, the court should consider whether this company was negligent and this fact resulted to the appearance of the accident. Coming back to the merits of the case, it is necessary to state that Edie should refer to the case law and primary conditions pertaining to the evaluation of his chances in suing grocery for the accident.
In case of Edie situation, the applicant should clearly recognize the reasons of the slippery floor leading to the accident. With that, the actions of the owner of the property and staff members should be analyzed in advance for the determination of the negligent behaviour. In this respect, Edie should present evidence on the existence of some of the following conditions preceding negligence:
The owner of Foods store was aware of slippery floor and left peanuts at the floor that caused risks of slip and fall due to the fact that the other reasonable person under same conditions could have acted in the other way in preventing slip and fall situations;
Any staff member of Food was aware of the dangerous conditions but have not taken any measures in order to save customers against it;
The actions of the owner of the grocery or any other staff member resulted in the creation of the spill and such state of cleaning in the grocery.
In addition to the abovementioned facts, the applicant should establish reasonableness of the actions of the owner of the property where the accident occurred or confirm its absence. In reference to the leakage from the roof because of the weather conditions, the applicant should submit evidence on the duration of such leakage for the consideration of the reasonableness of the actions of the owner. At the same time, the success in the slippery case depends on the ability of the applicant to prove the fact that the floor was slippery. Coming back to the merits of the case, it appears that the owner of the grocery was no aware of the problems he had at his premises. However, the complete determination of the reasonableness of the actions will be established upon interviewing the other staff members about the slippery conditions. Meanwhile, the slippery cases are quite popular among the people of the United States that only reaffirms the case that the owners of the property do not care about the customers. With that, the applicant should prove the existence of four primary elements pertaining to the existence of liability in the negligence case. They are duty, breach, causation and damages (Burgess, 2017). Therefore, Edie has all chances to prove existence of negligence in the case because the other person under similar conditions would have acted reasonably and warn customers about the possibility of slippery floor and collect peanuts form the place where it can be broken. In case with Edie, there are three elements out of four so that the applicant has significant chances to win this negligence case (Mayer, 2012).
B. Submission of the legal defenses in the slip and fall legal proceedings is the regular practice for the defendants due to the desire to save money. In this regard, the owner of the Foods will have two options to try: to prove absence of any responsibility for the slippery floor and fallen peanuts or confirm that his particular actions resulted in the accident. Beyond the fact that the owner of the property should be aware of all cases and situations arising within the premises of the grocery, the owner of Foods has legal right to file allegation that he was not aware of the dangerous condition and there was no legal opportunity to find out about it. In fact, there are several customers in the grocery so that the owner of the shop can not observe properly on the causation of the dangerous conditions by some clients. Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the owner should be familiar with all these cases. However, the owner of Foods should have taken relevant measures in order to keep safety of the floor on the relevant level during bad weather conditions. Therefore, it appears that the owner of the Foods can raise the defense on the absence of knowledge about slippery place while the case law proves that he should have known and foreseen it ("Iowa man sues Texas Roadhouse after slipping on peanuts", 2017).
In addition to the abovementioned defense, the defendant can rely on the carelessness of the applicant. This implies that the scope and contribution of the carelessness should be considered in application to this particular accident. The person should have noticed on the risk of slippery floor because of the weather conditions. However, this defense will not be applied to the peanuts thrown on the floor as there was reasonable amount of time within which the staff members should have observed the existence of flaws at the floor. For the confirmation of this approach, it is much preferably to rely on the judgment in case Johnson v. Lone Star Steakhouse, where the applicant was aware of the hazards in form of peanuts. This decision should be used for the consideration of the actions of both parties involved in this case. Meanwhile, in case Nevills v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., the court gave quite interesting and acceptable reasoning on the identification of the liability of the parties. Namely, it is up to the applicant to present evidence that the dangerous condition posed certain risk to the life and health of the individual. However, the applicant should not prove that this dangerous condition is open for all the parties. Therefore, the defendant should hear the presentation of the facts by Edie and then consider about own defenses that can be raised (Burgess, 2017). In addition, the only defense that can be raised by the defendant in the case is referred to the fact that the actions of the defendant did not cause the injuries caused to the plaintiff. Although, there are vague chances that this defense will be properly accepted by the court.
A. The U.S. Constitution and several other documents grant the right to the citizens for free expression. This legal opportunity is envisaged under the legal framework of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in order to provide people with the right to protect their life and legal opportunities against illegal violations. Besides, it should be noted that marching at the streets should be allowed by the local state bodies. This permit is mandatory in case the protestors intend to create certain difficulties for the operation of business units, other facilities which maintain ordinary livelihood of the people. Therefore, the receipt of the permit for marching will govern the usage of the public territory or private property and prevent violation of the rights of the other people. Coming back to the situation with the protestors in this particular case, the merits of the legal conflict evidence on the absence of regulatory permit that should have been issued by the state authorities. Therefore, the members of the marching violated the rights of other people by this protest. Moreover, there is no legal basis to file lawsuit against the City responsible for the actions of the police officers as the chances to win this case will be significantly low. It is clear that the protestors have intention to challenge actions of the police officers pertaining to the stoppage of the marching on the territory of the Foods. Although, this behavior of the police officers was reasonable as the protestors violated the rights of the business unit as Food by restriction access to the grocery. At the same time, it should be noted that the rights of one person terminates at the place where the legal opportunities of any other human are in place. Hence, the participants of the marching can file lawsuit against the violation of the constitutional rights as the right for free expression in view of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Besides, the protestors should clearly recognize that chances to succeed in this case due to the infringement of the procedure for conduction of protest (Beatty, Samuelson, & Beatty, 2004).
In addition to the abovementioned legal reasoning, it should be noted that the police officers are vested with the functions to interfere in the flow of the demonstration on public. However, there are certain limitation in reference to the rights of the police officers to intrude. This implies that the police officers can not stop any individual from the exercising the rights under the legal framework of American Constitution. Until the participants of the marching process act in compliance with all social norms and legal rules, the police are not allowed to interfere. The prevention of the access for the consumers to the territory of the Foods as the grocery could have been accepted by the state executives as the violation of the public safety and disorder. In this regard, the reasonableness of the actions of the police officers depend on the circumstances of any situation. Coming back to the merits of the case, the intrusion of the police officers was reasonable for the restoration of the legal order and provision of access to the customers of Foods. Moreover, the protestors did not act in compliance with the current legislation because of the absence of the legal permit for the marching at the streets. For the confirmation of the legality of the actions of the police officers on the interference in the flow of the marching, the court should rely on the case Buck v. City of Albuquerque considered in 2008 (Leiter, Mersky, & Hartman, 2012). According to the merits of this case, the protestors filed an allegation against the City for the violation of the constitutional rights for the free speech activities. However, the officers as the defendants in the case were right in presenting the evidence that lack of permit for this marching was sufficient ground for arresting the protestants. Regardless the fact that the absence of the permit for gathering was in possible violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and other legal norms, the court established the approach that should be followed by other judicial institutions. The officers did not have any reason to arrest protestors for participation in the marching on the property of the Foods owner. Besides, for the clarification of the actions of the police officers and protestants in much detailed way the provisions of the local legislation should be observed by the state bodies (Stubbs, 2009).
B. Despite the fact that the participants of the marching have the intention to sue the City for the actions of the police officers, the nature of the behaviour of these people should be considered by the judges. There is a huge possibility that the participants of the marching process will be found guilty for the violation of the provisions of the First Amendment. The violation took place due to the conduction of the free-speech activities with the private premises. Given the fact that the owner of the Goods grocery did not provide the participants of the marching process with the legal permission to organize marching within the territory of his grocery, the actions of these people can be regarded as illegal. The only exclusion in reference to the marching within the public property is referred to the shopping malls. However, this particular marching occurred within the territory of the grocery that did not fall under the scope of the notion of shopping malls. In this respect, it is highly important to keep in mind about the function and legal responsibilities of the police officers. In fact, they always have to follow the necessity to stand to the protection of the constitutional rights of the people for the free expression while the maintenance of the legal order in the particular region is the same priority. Beyond the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, the actions of the protestors in violation of the order in the premises of the grocery should be considered in reference to the local legislation and relevant case practice. However, the protestors can be found guilty additionally for the usage of signs and other images during the protest. This reasoning is confirmed with the Madsen injunction and should be reasonably observed by the judiciaries in this particular case ("First Amendment Implications of Controlling Public Protest", 2017).
References
Beatty, J., Samuelson, S., & Beatty, J. (2004). Business law and the legal environment (1st ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western/West.
Burgess, P. (2017). Slip-and-Fall Targets Peanut-Shell "Gimmick" | Torts. Onpointnews.com. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from http://www.onpointnews.com/NEWS/slip-and-fall-targets-peanut-shell-qgimmickq.html
First Amendment Implications of Controlling Public Protest. (2017). Lectlaw.com. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm
Leiter, R., Mersky, R., & Hartman, G. (2012). Landmark Supreme Court cases (1st ed.). New York: Facts On File.
Mayer, D. (2012). Advanced business law and the legal environment (1st ed.). Irvington, NY: Flatworld Knowledge.
Iowa man sues Texas Roadhouse after slipping on peanuts. (2017). Des Moines Register. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/05/09/iowa-man-sues-texas-roadhouse-after-slipping-peanuts/84146366/
Stubbs, R. (2009). First Amendment Cases On Demonstrations And Marches. Retrieved 28 January 2017, from http://www.aele.org/1st-amendment.pdf
