The Plaintiff, an elderly man who walked slowly but surely, was in a busy, popular restaurant and decided to use the men’s restroom during his dinner. His path to the restroom crossed in front of the kitchen door, where servers were coming in and out with food trays. A young server who was an employee of the restaurant was carrying a large tray full of food. He came out of the kitchen, walked approximately 4 steps, did not see the elderly man, knocked him to the ground and killed him instantly.
Who is responsible for his death?
FACTS
The server had gone in and out of the kitchen hundreds of times with food trays and never saw any customers walk that close to the kitchen door. The server was walking fast because he wanted to deliver hot food.
The elderly man was lost and thought the kitchen door was the restroom and was walking toward it thinking it was the restroom.
An independent witness said neither the server nor the elderly man was watching where they were walking and collided.
YOU HAVE BEEN SEATED ON THE JUTY – JURY INSTRUCTIONS:
The restaurant is responsible for any negligence of the server.
If your verdict is for the restaurant, or if you assign greater than 50% fault to the elderly man your verdict is for the restaurant.
In reaching your verdict, do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, public opinion, or any other sentiment for or against any party influence your decision.
After you cast your ANONYMOUS vote, continue reading to see the jury verdict for my last Question of Fact Blog – Bar Shooting Liability.
Cast your ANONYMOUS vote below:
BELOW ARE THE RESULTS FOR MY LAST QUESTION OF FACT BLOG – BAR SHOOTING LIABILITY.
The results for the Bar Shooting Liability case were mixed. 90% assigned liability to the owner of the bar, presumably because I stated the contract placed the responsibility on the owner for the exterior of the building. But no doubt the tenant failed to maintain security inside the building, and the performer promoted the show with depictions of violence. 10 % voted no liability for anyone. Of the 90% who thought the owner was liable, 75% also believed the tenant was liable and 10% assigned liability to the performer. No juror assigned fault to the concert attendee who was shot and killed in crossfire. This case demonstrates two things. First, the concept of Comparative Negligence. This law requires an apportionment of fault for injury or death. Second, it demonstrates the importance of trial lawyers and juries in deciding civil disputes. Trial lawyers are skilled in their profession in persuasion and logic, while jurors hear the facts as presented by trial lawyers to decide a just outcome. Trial by jury is one of the most amazing things provided for in our United States Constitution. Thank you for your participation.