Reference no: EM131440885
In the brief for Love v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., the LEGAL ISSUE is: Did the plaintiff prove by circumstantial evidence that the water was on the floor long enough, so that the defendant breached its duty of care because it knew or should have known about the water on the floor? Court’s Answer: Yes.
Explain the facts and argument supporting the court’s answer of yes to the legal question. In other words, supply Part III of the legal brief for Love v. Hardee’s food system, Inc.
a) Start Part III of the Legal Brief with the test or standard the court used to determine how long the risk to invitees had to exist before the defendant breached its duty of care? Seek this test out in the Court’s opinion. You cannot know whether there has been a breach of care unless you state the standard which is used to determine whether there has been a breach of the standard of care. (Hint: How long must the dangerous condition exist before the restaurant can be said to have breached its duty of care to invitees?)
b) What facts (circumstantial evidence) did the court use to prove that the test had been met?
Try to state all, not just one or two reasons of the circumstantial evidence that the court in the Hardee's case uses in its argument to support its answer to the legal question. Which are the most important, that is, probative (google this word) circumstances supporting the jury verdict.