• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Whenever you search in PBworks or on the Web, Dokkio Sidebar (from the makers of PBworks) will run the same search in your Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Gmail, Slack, and browsed web pages. Now you can find what you're looking for wherever it lives. Try Dokkio Sidebar for free.


analyze Alcaraz

Page history last edited by abogado 4 years, 11 months ago

Analyze Alcaraz case


1. Read elements of a slip and fall case - http://new.profj.info/profj.us/26sp/law11/slipfall.htm


2. Read and Study the Alcaraz case - http://profj.us/26sp/law11/alcaraz.htm


3. As a plaintiff's attorney or paralegal you need to interview the client, determine the facts of the case, and work up the case to ensure you can Prove the Elements of your Case. In a Medical Malpractice case, based on negligence:


six elements must be proven, which include: (1) an act or actionable omission by the defendant (2) Duty of due care (3) Breach of duty (lack of due care) (4) Actual causes (5) Proximal causes and (6) Damages. The first three define the negligence portion and the last three define the liability portion. All six elements must be proven to establish liability. Physicians that practice must exercise a degree duty to meet the standard of care existing in the “same or similar” communities by member of their profession. In the presuit investigation experts are needed to review records, both from a plaintiff and defendant standpoint in order to establish negligence. Due to the complexity of medical litigation other types of experts may also be needed.


4. Demonstrate your knowledge of the Alcaraz case by labeling the various facts of the case which you would plead in order to prove the case of Negligence -


here is an example:


Elements of Negligence -- (sample )slip-&-fall -- principles governing. -- The principles that govern slip-and-fall cases are set against the general backdrop that an owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the benefit of invitees; to establish a violation of that duty, the plaintiff must prove either (1) that the presence of a substance upon the floor was the result of the defendant's negligence or (2) that the substance had been on the floor for such a length of time that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known of its presence and failed to use ordinary care to remove it; the mere fact that a person slips and falls does not give rise to an inference of negligence.


Specific Facts - (sample) - Where appellant had complete control of the building where appellee worked; where the floor in the hallway leading to the breakroom on the second floor was tile; where, due to the nature of the chicken processing business, it was a common everyday occurrence for greasy water to get on the floor in the second-floor hallway and make it slick; and where, in response to this condition, appellant had placed safety mats in the hallways and established a policy that safety mats were not to be removed until all employees and inspectors had left the building; yet when appellee slipped and fell outside the breakroom, the mats had been removed and the tile floor was wet, there was substantial evidence under the first basis for liability in a slip-and-fall case; the jury could readily infer that greasy water was present on the tile floor in the hallway outside the breakroom and that its presence was the result of appellant's negligence; that is, as a result of the removal of the safety mats before all employees had left the building, in violation of company policy, the tile floor became wet and slick.


Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.