Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Zoom out for more assets

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

Make The Argument

7-11 could've made sure employees followed the "No soliciting, no loitering, and no loud music " sign to prevent them

Before you Begin

The Defendant 7-11 owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff Ken Nivens. The duty included maintaining a safe environment for customers, which involves taking reasonable precautions to prevent criminal acts on their premises.

7-11 did not breach their duty of care because they had posted signs outside their store saying "no soliciting, no loitering and no loud music." Also, they had their cleaks watch for loiterers and tell them to leave.

The foreseeability of the teen's attack on Nivens was unforseeable because there had never been no past evidence of altercations with teens and customers and there was no reason to know a criminal act would occur.

What is a business invite?

What is negligence?

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.

What is the general duty care to protect another from criminal acts?

What is forseeable act?

Ken Nivens vs 7-11 Hoagy's Corner

A

Plaintiff Ken Nivens was assaulted by a group of teenagers in a 7-11 store parking lot on December 26 at around 10 pm

Background

Review the Case

B

The teenagers, including Robert Figueroa, were known to loiter around the 7-11, sometimes soliciting customers to buy them alcohol

1. The plaintiff in this case is Ken Nivens.

2. The defendant in this case is 7-11 store Hoagy's Corner

3. The plaintiff Ken Nivens is seeking damages for his injuries.

4. Nivens injuries consisited of him being kicked in the head, neck, shoulders, and ribs multiple times continouslly.

5. The only one out of the youths to testify is Figueroa. His tesimony is that him and his friends would often solicit 7-11 customers to buy beer for them.

6. 7-11 did have signs posted outside of the store stating "no soliciting, no loitering, and no loud music."

7. John Shadduck, a longtime customer and witness. He testified that he had no recollection of any acts of violence at the store and added that customers had to be well-behaved.

8. Kathleen Anderson, a 7-11 employee testified the majority of teens/young adults do not cause trouble and were behaved. She went on to say that the year leading to the incident she didn't view any fights or altercations between customers and teens.

9. Regarding drinking near or in 7-11, there policy doesn't allow loitering or drinking in the premises

10. If 7-11 employees discover drinking on the premises they are required to ask them to dispose of it or leave. If the persons does not comply, the employees are instructed to call the police.

C

The Plaintiff sued 7-11 for negligence in providing security, while 7-11 argued the criminal act was unforeseeable due to no prior violence towards customers.

Deputy Sheriff Barnhill couldn't recall any prior violent incidents at the store involving customers

D

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi