To be able to prove that the food company was negligent and thus liable for Edie’s injury, Edie must be able to prove all negligence elements. Edie need to demonstrate that the food company had a duty to ensure that aisle was clean enough and free of any object or item that may interfere with the safety of those who will be walking into the food store using that particular route. In this case, the aisle was the company’s responsibility which had not been taken care of. Moreover, the peanuts that have been spilled on the ground had originated from the food store. It had been caused by a roof fall which was basically caused by heavy rainfall. The company manager had known the intensity of the rain and possible damages that could have come hand in hand with that heavy rainfall. Thus, he had the responsibility surveying the situation after the heavy rains and making repairs where necessary. The company manager is basically responsible of what is happening inside the company and in the surrounding of the company (Peasoned, n.d.)..
Read also Ecological, Legal, Environmental, Technological, Economic, Political, Factors Affecting Businesses
She also needs to demonstrate that there was negligence of duty. The manager failed to perform his duty accordingly. He did not inspect his stores after rains and as a result, he failed to identify the falling ceiling tiles and the spilling peanuts. As a result the spilled peanuts have been lying on the aisle since the incident took place about a week or a few days. Edie also needed to demonstrate that as a result of negligence she suffered damage or injury. The spilled peanuts initiated Edie slipping and breaking of her leg. In this regard, there is a neglected duty that results to damages or injury to another person. Consequently, the company manager who is responsible of identifying building physical faults and hiring repair services is therefore responsible of what happened to Edie. Based on this argument, Edie is very likely to win the case against the food company since there is a clear demonstration of presence of a duty, duty negligence which acts as a proximate cause of damage.
Legal Defense by the Food Company
Food Company will definitely raise a legal defense to negate any of the negligence elements to be able to counter Edie claim. The most probable element that the company may consider negating in Edie claim is their duty towards ensuring no items or tools on the aisle. The manager will basically try to prove that although he is responsible of what goes on in the company, he is not responsible of ensuring no items that can cause damage to the customer on the passage. The fact that those peanuts had not be recognize is most likely because the aisle was not the only way to the store and thus, the manager does not have any duty to it. Moreover, individuals are required to take care of themselves as they walk around in the street. Basically, the company will consider justifying that the aisle is not part of what the food Inc. manages and thus, they are not responsible for its cleanliness. The ability to prove that will provide the company with a chance to weaken Edie claim and thus, nullifying the claim (FindLaw, 2015).
Violation of Constitutional Rights
People are granted constitutional rights to demonstrate and protest peacefully in customary public forums that include parks, sidewalks, or streets. However, the government may sometimes impose limits on activities of this kind by demanding permits. This is still constitutional provided the requirements of the permit are reasonable. The constitution also requires the demonstrators to respect private businesses and that they should keep a distance of 8 feet away from private business entrance to avoid interfering with their business operation. In addition, the right to demonstrate protects protestors from attack by the police officers. The constitution protects protestors from mass arrest, protest criminalization, and mass arrest among other discrimination of protestors (ACLU, n.d.). In this case, the protestors are protected by the constitution; however, they are not permitted to interfere with the right of others. In this case, the protestors tried as much as possible to maintain the constitutional law in their demonstration. However, their demonstration was affecting the Food business and thus, the food business had to look for assistance. Although the demonstrators avoided tampering with private properties, they blocked the entrance and the exit of the food business and thus, interfering with the company’s business of making money. This is what made the Foods to ask for police assistance. The police only prevented the protestors from standing in front of the Food business and not from protesting. In addition, the police did not use any form of force, there was no any mass arrest, no police brutality, or any form of protest criminalization. In this regard, the protestors do not have the ground to claim that their rights were violated. In this case, the police just instructed them to apply their rights while caring for the rights of others. Thus, this case has no ground since the same constitution that protects protestors against government discrimination protects business operators against protestors’ interference.
Conviction of Trespassing
Trespass is the act of entering in a property of another person knowingly without permission. Actions of this kind are considered as infringement of the legal rights of the property owner to enjoy the ownership benefits. Criminal charges that range from felony to violation might be brought over an individual who interferes with legal proper rights of another person. In the demonstration case, the demonstrator avoided very much not to step on any ground that belongs to the Food Company (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). They confined their movement within their legal ground. Although they did block the entrance from the pavement which is regarded as a rightful place for their demonstration, they managed to block the food company entrance and exit. This cannot be regarded as trespass since no one stepped on any part of the ground that is associated with the company’s operation. In this regard, it may be hard to prove that the protestors trespass the company’s property. They acted within their legal requirements though this still affected the business since the pavement is located on the entrance side of the Food business. However, this was not protestors fault rather than the town designer or the company’s designer. Therefore, this accusation against trespass is very unlikely to win.