Rubric For Assigned Case Presentations And Papers

Rubric For Assigned Case Presentations And Papers1each Student Will B

Each student will be assigned a case from the end-of-chapter cases in the text book. You are required to submit a paper on the case and to engage in an in-class discussion with the professor about the case. The cases in the textbook are short summaries of the case and not the full court opinion. You can find the full court opinion online. Using the full case opinion, you will write a 500 to 750-word paper addressing:

• The facts of the case
• The law that applies in this situation
• The issue—how the law applies to the facts
• A discussion supporting a particular outcome in the case, based on your analysis of the law and facts (not necessarily agreeing with the court)
• Your conclusion

Be prepared to discuss the case in class with detailed knowledge of the law and facts. You should not rely on your notes or the textbook during the discussion. The discussion may include hypothetical legal or factual scenarios requiring quick thinking.

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Myers v. Forest City Enterprises presents a situation where a plaintiff, Anna Mae Myers, sustained injuries after slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk at the Canton Centre Mall, owned and operated by Forest City Enterprises. The incident occurred on December 26, 1990, a period marked by no recent snowfall or precipitation, yet the sidewalk was observed to have accumulated ice, as documented by photographs Myers presented. Forest City acknowledged exclusive control over the premises and its routine of daily snow and ice removal during winter. The case primarily hinges on whether Forest City was negligent in maintaining the sidewalks, resulting in Myers's fall.

In Ohio, premises liability law obligates property owners or occupiers to maintain safe conditions for invitees. However, natural accumulations of ice and snow generally do not impose a duty to remove them unless the owner has undertaken to do so. When an owner chooses to undertake such maintenance, they must do so prudently and in a manner that does not create or exacerbate hazards. If the accumulation is deemed natural—such as refreezing melted snow—liability typically cannot be established unless the owner created or aggravated a hazardous unnatural condition.

The key legal question in this case is whether Forest City, by undertaking to clear the sidewalks each morning, created a dangerous hazard or negligently allowed an unnatural accumulation of ice. The evidence shows that the sidewalk was cleaned daily, but ice still accumulated. Robin Cooper, an employee responsible for ice removal, suggested that passing cars could have splashed water onto the sidewalk, which then froze, creating an unnatural hazard. This raises an issue of fact: was the ice accumulation natural or man-made?

Supporting Myers's claim, one could argue that once the mall undertook regular ice removal, any persistent hazard or hazard caused by their activity could make them liable if they failed to mitigate or warn of the danger. The court's initial summary judgment dismissed the case, citing that Myers had not provided sufficient evidence that Forest City negligently created or ignored a dangerous condition or had actual notice of a hazard. However, the appellate dissent noted that the issue of whether the ice was natural or artificial is a factual one best decided by a jury, especially given the depositions indicating that ice could have formed due to external factors like passing vehicles.

From my perspective, the case underscores the importance of the legal distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of ice on commercial property. When property owners undertake to clear walkways, they assume a duty to do so reasonably, which includes preventing the formation of unnatural hazards caused by their activities or external influences they should anticipate. If the ice was caused by splashing vehicles—a predictable external source—then Forest City may have had a duty to take additional measures to prevent injury, such as applying de-icing agents or warning patrons.

Given the evidence, I believe the case should have proceeded to a trial where a jury could assess whether Forest City was negligent in its ice removal practices or in failing to respond to external conditions that contributed to the hazardous icy surface. The dismissal at summary judgment seems premature because the existence of a factual dispute about the nature and origin of the ice was apparent. Courts should avoid disposing of negligence claims without considering the nuances that juries are best positioned to evaluate, especially where external factors like passing vehicles may have played a role in creating the hazard.

In conclusion, the Myers v. Forest City Enterprises case illustrates the complexities in premises liability involving icy conditions. While property owners are generally not liable for natural accumulations, their obligation increases when they undertake maintenance activities or if external factors they should have foreseen contribute to hazards. A proper legal determination necessitates a fact-finder to evaluate whether the conditions were the result of owner negligence or natural causes, guiding appropriate liability and safety measures to prevent future injuries.

References

• Porter v. Miller, 13 Ohio App.3d 93 (1983).
• Myers v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 635 NE 2d 1268 (OH, 1993).
• Kinkey v. Jewish Hosp. Assoc. of Cincinnati, 16 Ohio App.2d 93 (1968).
• Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
• Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (1991).
• Lopatkovich v. Tiffin, 28 Ohio St.3d 204 (1986).
• Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1533.01.
• Schmidt v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2010-Ohio-5840.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343, 366 (1965).
• Hensley v. Cincinnati, 325 Ohio App.3d 358 (2010).