Compare and contrast your ideas with their ideas demostrating your analytical and cognitive thinking skills. Respond in 125 words minimum for each. Any reference used in APA format.

 

First Discussion

Negligence indicates a cause of action where a plaintiff may declare a civil wrongful act case against a defendant. In order to meet a prima facie (on its face) case for negligence a plaintiff must ultimately prove the following four elements: that there was a duty on the part of the defendant to follow to a certain standard of conduct, that that defendant breached that duty, the breach of duty was not only the actual cause, but the proximate cause of injury, and there are damages.

 

In the case of Stanley K. MILLER and Deborah D. Miller, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant within Wisconsin, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) appealed from the circuit court's entry of judgment of a jury verdict awarding Stanley K. Miller (Miller) $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. Three Wal-Mart employees stopped and detained Miller because they suspected him of shoplifting. Miller filed this action, claiming that Wal-Mart unlawfully stopped, detained, interrogated, and searched him. The jury determined that Wal-Mart was negligent in the hiring, training or supervising of its employees, which caused Miller damages. The jury further determined that the Wal-Mart employees did not have reasonable cause to believe that Miller had shoplifted. (Find Law For Legal Professionals. (2017).)

Wisconsin follows standard negligence principles; indicating that negligence is defined as the failure to use ordinary care.  The legal definition for cause is a “substantial factor.”  A plaintiff’s injury may have more than one cause.  As long as a defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the injuries, the defendant is liable for any damages associated with the injuries. (State Law Summary. (2013).)

 

State Law Summary. (2013). Overview of Wisconsin. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from 

     State Law Summary website: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/tida.site-ym.com/ 

     resource/resmgr/State_Law_Summaries/WI.pdf

Find Law For Legal Professionals. (2017). MILLER v. WAL MART STORES INC. 

     Retrieved May 17, 2017, from Find Law For Legal Professionals website: 

     http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-supreme-court/1252980.html

 

2nd Discussion

 

   I reviewed the 1986 neglect tort case that occurred in Wisconsin; Brooks v. Hayes. In this case it was determined to be a neglect case because the result was not intentional, rather a mistake made. Mr. and Mrs. Brooks claimed that their real-estate developer Hayes should be liable for the damages of a fire, which was the result of an incorrectly installed component of their fireplace.

Here is how the four components of a neglect case that must be proven effected the result of this case. The court found that Hayes the general contractor in this instance subbed out the faulty work to a sub-contractor, and nowhere in his contract did it state that he would be liable for the work done by the sub-contractors, only that he would; as general contractor, make sure that the work was getting done and that he would provide the material for the work. This means that he had no duty to make sure that this work was done properly, and since it wasn’t his duty he wasn’t breaching his contract with the couple, and wasn’t responsible for any causation, or damages in the case. The plaintiffs should have gone after the sub-contractor. This case was dismissed by the courts for the reasons I previously mentioned.

References:

Miller, R. L. (2017). Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases, 11th Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781337269155/

Brooks v. Hayes. 133 Wis. 2d 228 (1986). 395 N.W.2d 167. Retrieved from: http://law.justia.com/lawsearch?query=wisconsin%20tort%20negligence