Question

There are four (4) questions based on the following article from the ABA Journal. The Ohio Supreme Court has reversed an award of more than $360,000 in a suit against a grocery store chain that provided a motorized shopping cart to a customer who caused a collision and injured the plaintiff. The court said Giant Eagle wasn’t liable because there is insufficient evidence that its actions caused the incident. The plaintiff in the case, Barbara Rieger, was injured in December 2012 at a Giant Eagle in Brook Park, Ohio, when another shopper, Ruth Kurka, hit Rieger’s shopping cart with her motorized cart, according to the Ohio Supreme Court’s September 19th opinion. Rieger, who had been standing at the bakery counter, was knocked to the ground and taken to the hospital by ambulance, incurring $11,511 in medical bills. Kurka died before trial, and her estate settled with Rieger for $8,500. At trial, Rieger provided deposition testimony by Kurka’s husband, who said his wife had never been trained on how to operate the motorized cart. Rieger also presented evidence that there were 117 incidents involving motorized cars at Giant Eagle stores from 2004 to 2012. Deposition testimony by a Giant Eagle representative submitted at trial established that there are no instructions for operation on the motorized carts, and Giant Eagle assumes that people who use the carts know how to drive them. Jurors also heard evidence that Kurka had been driving motorized carts for more than a year and had no prior incidents. Jurors awarded $121,000 in compensatory damages and nearly $1.2 million in punitive damages. An appeals court lowered the punitive damages to $242,000. On appeal, Giant Eagle contended that the appeals court had eliminated the need to prove negligence and made the store an insurer for motorized cart incidents when it affirmed the verdict. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with Giant Eagle and said a trial judge should have granted a directed verdict to the grocery store chain. It isn’t enough for a plaintiff to assert or speculate that a defendant’s actions or failure to act might have caused an injury, the court said. Instead, the plaintiff has to show that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s behavior. “Despite the fact that Giant Eagle does not provide training for its customers who use the motorized carts, there is no evidence that training would have prevented the accident in this case,” the court said.

Giant Eagle took exception to the decision of the appeals court when it “eliminated the need to prove negligence and made the store an insurer for motorized cart incidents when it affirmed the verdict.” Since it was a negligence case, which requirement to prove negligence is demonstrated by the Ohio Supreme Court’s statement that “Giant Eagle wasn’t liable because there is insufficient evidence that its actions caused the incident”?

Group of answer choices

Unreasonable Behavior

Proximate Causation

Duty of Care

Causation in Fact

Answer 1

Answer: Causation in Fact

Explanation:

The elements that need to be proved to establish negligence include the duty of care, breach of duty, Causation that includes causation in fact and proximate cause, and injury. Unreasonable behavior is not an element of negligence. Proximate causation exists when there is a strong connection between the act and injury and foreseeability of the harm is important to establish proximate causation. Here the court is not trying to demonstrate the proximate causation as foreseeability is not tested. Duty of care checks whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and the court is not telling about the duty of care. Causation in fact is the element that checks whether injury occured because of the defendant’s act. Here the court is trying to demonstrate causation in fact as the statement establishes the need to provide evidence that the actions caused the incident.