Case Brief Assignment (Page 572 & Supplement) Faverty V. McD ✓ Solved

Case Brief Assignment (Page 572 & Supplement) Faverty v. Mcdonalds Res

Please read the judicial opinion and the dissenting opinion HERE to complete the case brief assignment. This case is also discussed in the textbook on page 572. Please refer to Explanation of Case Briefs in the Module 02. This provides an overview for the basis of a case brief, tips, and grading requirements.

In addition, review the case briefs rubric for the grading scale. Case Briefs Rubric.pdf

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Case Name and Citation: Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurant of Oregon, Inc., 892 P.2d 703.

Parties: The plaintiff in this case is Faverty, and the defendant is McDonald's Restaurant of Oregon, Inc. The plaintiff alleges negligence due to incidents arising from a visit to the defendant's restaurant.

Procedure History: The case was initiated in a trial court where Faverty filed a lawsuit against McDonald's alleging injury due to negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant. Faverty appealed the decision to the appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's ruling. Subsequently, Faverty petitioned for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the case reaching the state supreme court. The supreme court examined the legal issues presented and rendered its decision based on applicable law and factual findings.

Facts: Faverty visited a McDonald's restaurant in Oregon. During the visit, Faverty slipped and fell on a patch of spilled liquid that the restaurant had not cleaned up promptly. The injury caused physical harm leading to medical treatment. Faverty contended that McDonald's was negligent in failing to maintain a safe environment, while McDonald's argued that they exercised reasonable care and that the spill was not discovered or promptly cleaned due to circumstances beyond their control.

Issue: The primary legal issue was whether McDonald's had a duty to maintain a safe environment and whether their negligence was the proximate cause of Faverty's injuries. Formally, the issue can be framed as: "Did McDonald's breach its duty of care to Faverty, and was this breach the legal cause of injury?"

Summary of Arguments: Faverty’s argument centered on the premise that McDonald's knew or should have known about the spill and failed to promptly clean it, thereby breaching its duty of care. Faverty claimed that this negligence directly resulted in her injury. McDonald's argued that it had exercised reasonable care, that the spill was not inherently obvious, and that the injury resulted from factors outside their control, thus negating liability.

Rule: The court applied the legal principle that a business owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe for customers. This includes the obligation to discover and rectify hazards that could foreseeably cause injury. The court also referenced relevant case law that establishes liability when a hazard is known or should have been known and was not promptly addressed.

Court's Reasoning: The appellate court examined whether McDonald's had actual or constructive knowledge of the spill. It considered evidence that the spill was visible and that restaurant staff should have discovered it during their routine checks. The court reasoned that McDonald's breached its duty by failing to promptly clean or warn about the hazard. The court found that the breach was the proximate cause of Faverty's injuries because the injury would not have occurred had the hazard been addressed properly. The court also examined the reasonableness of McDonald's conduct, affirming that their failure to prevent the accident was a breach of duty.

Holding: The court held that McDonald's was negligent and that its negligence was the proximate cause of Faverty's injury. Therefore, McDonald's was liable for her damages.

Disposition: The appellate court's decision was upheld, affirming that McDonald's owed a duty to keep the premises safe and that its breach of this duty resulted in the injury.

Dissenting or Concurring Opinions: A dissenting opinion argued that the evidence did not conclusively establish that McDonald's knew or should have known about the spill, thus questioning the breach of duty. The dissent emphasized that the facts did not support a finding of negligence, urging caution in imposing liability without clear evidence of neglect.

In conclusion, the Faverty v. McDonald's case exemplifies the application of premises liability law, emphasizing the necessity for businesses to take proactive steps in hazard recognition and remediation to prevent injuries and avoid liability. Courts continue to scrutinize whether establishments exercised reasonable care, especially when customer injuries occur due to hazards that could have been discovered through routine inspections.

References

• Faverty v. McDonald's Restaurant of Oregon, Inc., 892 P.2d 703 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1995).
• Prosser, W. L., & Keeton, W. P. (1984). Legal Concepts of Torts (5th ed.).
• Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965).
• Dobbs, D. B. (2000). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.).
• Dan B. Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden & Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts (2011).
• Keeton, W. P., et al., Prosser, Wade & Schwartz, Torts (11th ed., 2005).
• Willingham, J. H. (2011). Premises Liability and Duty of Care.
• Farnsworth, E. A. (2004). Legal Aspects of Owning and Operating a Business.
• American Law Institute. (2012). Restatement of Torts, Third, Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.
• Harvard Law Review. (2013). Premises Liability and the Duty of Business Owners.