Case Project 3 Response To Action

834 Words4 Pages

Lisa Hetherington
LGST 495 7980
Professor Hansen
17 April 2016
Project 3: Response to Action
This case was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Jim Jones, who alleges that the Defendants, Grab-n-Go, Inc. (“the store”) and by proxy, its owner, Mr. John Smith, did negligently leave some amount of coffee creamer on the floor near the coffee bar, which he stepped on, slipped and fell, but for causing the injuries he sustained that day. The defendants, through their attorneys, move to DISMISS the counts brought against them pursuant to Md. Rules 2-322(b)(2), Failure to State a Claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Jones, alleges one cause of action: Negligence (Count I), Maintaining Negligent Conditions. He stated in his claim that the store employees failed to clean up a mess of coffee creamer, which was part of their duty of care to him as an invitee on the premises, and upon which he slipped. The employees in their depositions, unequivocally state that they had no knowledge of the spilled creamer. They noted that when Mr. Jones entered the store, he went straight to the …show more content…

Giant Food, Inc. v. Mitchell, 640 A.2d 1134 (Md. 1994). The onus is on the plaintiff to provide evidence that the store owner had constructive knowledge that a condition existed that could prove harmful to their guests. Rehn v. Westfield Am., 837 A.2d 981, 984 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003); Moulden v. Greenbelt Consumer Servs., Inc., 210 A.2d 724 (Md. 1965); and that there was sufficient time to “remove the danger, or warn the invitee.” Keene v. Arlan's Dep't Store of Baltimore, Inc., 370 A.2d 124 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1977). The plaintiff’s complaint, “shall contain a clear statement of the facts necessary to constitute a cause of action”, MD Rules, Rule 2-305, and Mr. Jones has failed to do so

Open Document