Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Asset library
Be The Judge
M'khayle Murdock
Alieu Sanyang
Malachi Quashie
**Decision for Plaintiff (Ken Nivens):**
Given the history of regular gatherings of young people in the 7-11 parking lot, the solicitation of customers for alcohol, and the specific incident involving Figueroa grabbing and assaulting Nivens, there's a reasonable basis for Nivens' claim. The evidence suggests that 7-11 was aware of potential issues related to loitering and solicitation, but 7-11 had signs outside the store,had clerks kick soliciters off the property and had policies in Empolyee manuals about soliciters.Therefore 7-11 is not liable and Ken is not awarded any damages.
**Decision for Defendant (7-11):**
The defense has strong points to argue. The absence of prior violent incidents towards customers at the store suggests that the criminal act against Nivens was unforeseeable. The store's policies, including signs, explicit instructions to clerks, and the call for police intervention if needed, demonstrate an effort to maintain security. Witness testimonies from a longtime customer and an employee affirming the generally well-behaved nature of the majority of young people who frequented the store provide support for 7-11's claim that they took adequate precautions,so this case is dismissed
Reviw Of The Case
Issue Before The Court
Kathleen Anderson was a 7-11 employee
"7-11 had an explict polocy requiring persons drinking on the perimisis to dispose of any alcahol or leave"
She testified "that the majority of teens and young adults who came to the store did not cause trouble and were well-bahaved"
Wheter a business owes a duty to buisness invitees to protect them against acts by third persons on the business premises.
Since "7-11 had an explict polocy requiring persons drinking on the perimisis to dispose of any alcahol or leave" employees were to inforce and make them leave
7-11 could've made sure employees followed the "No soliciting, no loitering, and no loud music " sign to prevent them
What is a "Special Relationship" exception to duty of care to protect another from criminal acts?
7-11 contends that they should not be held responsible for Nivens' injuries because there was no evidence of prior violence towards customers. They argue that the criminal act committed by the teenagers was unforeseeable and that they did not have any knowledge or reason to believe that such an incident would occur.
The Plaintiff, Ken Nivens, was injured in the head, neck, shoulders, and ribs as a result of being hit and kicked by the group of teenagers who attacked him in the 7-11 store parking lot.
The teenagers, including Robert Figueroa, were known to loiter around the 7-11, sometimes soliciting customers to buy them alcohol
Deputy Sheriff Barnhill couldn't recall any prior violent incidents at the store involving customers