Mae Tom Had a Very

Mae Tom had a very common tort case. A cousin of the author worked in a law firm in Chicago, IL as a medical bill collector. They represented large hospitals in the Chicago land area and he participated in settlement negotiations with opposition attorneys regarding many such cases. In general, the cousin told the author that the personal injury lawyers who were litigating the cases and who the Chicago law firm had to negotiate settlements usually would anticipate settlements on a general formula. The formula (not written in stone) would be to multiply the usual patient loss in medical bills lost wages and property damage multiplied by a factor of 2 or 3. This would cover pain and suffering and attorney fees which usually were 1/3 of the settlement. However, things could vary widely from case to case depending on a wide number of factors, including case specific factors that would sway a jury either way, patient age, whether they were employed or not and a number of other factors.

In this paper, the author will first explain the case law. Most state laws applying to torts like the Connecticut law guidance for juries cited below are based upon English common law. Based upon the author's research, the Connecticut statute is very typical. Indeed, Connecticut was one of the initial thirteen colonies, so its law was based directly upon British common law. Secondly, the author will apply the textbook criteria for negligence. Thirdly, they will apply the criteria for the defense.

Clearly Ms. Tom has a case. The case satisfies all of the above criteria, including duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages (Owen, 2007, 672).

The plaintiff has alleged that her injuries were caused by the mode by which the defendant Kresge operated the business. In particular, this is by the way Kresge designed, constructed or maintained their premises. Any public establishment has a legal responsibility for the safety of its patrons under the mode of operation rule. The plaintiff in this case need not show that Kresge had notice of the particular item or defect that caused the injury. To obtain damages under this particular rule, the plaintiff must prove 1) that the mode of operation of Kresge gave rise to a foreseeable risk of injury to customers (or others invited in) such as the plaintiff, and 2) that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the accident within that zone of risk. The Connecticut statute that the author is quoting is very typical ("Civil jury instructions: 3.9-17," 2008).

In the text there are five elements of negligence. This was not always so. There were four. Duty, breach, cause and damage were among these. Arguments over which of the legal pigeonholes elements of a case were plugged into usually revolved around duty, breach and new questions of proximaty. This brought about the present five element regime (Owen, 2007, 672).