Based on the summary of facts and findings as set out below

Based on the summary of facts and findings as set out below, take the side of the Plaintiff or the Defendant and set forth arguments why your side should win and how much monetary damages, if any, should be awarded by a judge or jury and in what amounts for each element of damages such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages in the past and in the future.

Go with your instincts for the side that you are most comfortable with and give your best explanations and analysis. There is not an absolute clear-cut answer, but your task is to convince a jury or judge why you should win. And would you be willing to settle? Or go to trial? If so, how much would you be willing to accept as a settlement if you represent the Plaintiff or how much are you willing to pay to settle the case if you are the Defendant? Or is your side willing to go to trial and why? In which court would you file your lawsuit? And why that court? Are there any crimes committed in these facts? Any criminal liability? Any punitive damages? If the parties want to attempt settlement, should they use mediation, arbitration or some other method?

Based on the \"Checklist for Deciding Whether to Sue\", is this case worthy of filing from the perspective of the plaintiff?

Please answer or comment on ALL issues and questions set out in this \"question\" from the perspective of your choice.

The Law of a Premises Liability case in the State of Texas demands that the Plaintiff must prove:
a. The premises (at Fort Bend Grocery) were dangerous or extra hazardous
b. That the owner of the premises (store) knew about the dangerous or extra hazardous condition or they should have known
c. That the owner of the premises failed to reduce or eliminate the harm
d. Plaintiff was injured as a result of a, b, and c.

In Texas, we follow the legal principle of \"comparative negligence.\" Example: after hearing all the evidence, the jury finds that the plaintiff and the defendant are both negligent; defendant - 80%; plaintiff - 20% and awards $10,000.00 in monetary damages. That jury award will be reduced by the plaintiff\'s 20% negligence. Therefore the plaintiff will only recover $8,000.00. If plaintiff and defendant are both 50% negligent then plaintiff would only recover $5,000.00 of the total $10,000.00. If the plaintiff is found to be 51% negligent or more, then the plaintiff is \"more negligent than the defendant\" and recovers zero. Is Fred Falldown\'s case an example of comparative negligence?

Facts and Findings:

1. Fred Falldown sued Fort Bend Grocery.

2. On November 10, 2014, Fred slipped and fell down on a slippery substance on aisle five while shopping alone; he was pushing his cart with both hands while looking at the shelves trying to choose his new favorite beer.

3. Wally Witness testified in his deposition: “…I told the cashier about three to four minutes ago that there was some sort of wet substance or water or something on aisle five that should be cleaned up.” Note: what is a deposition?

4. In answers to written Interrogatories by Plaintiff Falldown, Defendant FB Grocery gave this sworn written answer: “We have staff check each aisle at least every 15 minutes; see the attached (Exhibit 15) signed work sheet by the department supervisor indicating that aisle five was checked approximately 15 minutes before the Plaintiff claims to have fallen.” Note: what is an interrogatory?

5. Plaintiff Falldown has the following medical bills: a. Emergency Room and Ambulance - $4,300.00 b. Doctor - $1,800.00 c. Rehabilitation/Physical Therapy - $3,200.00 for treatment to his neck, back, and right arm.

6. Plaintiff Falldown has a bulging disk in his low back and there is a possibility of future surgery which could cost $32,000.00; currently he has no more medical appointments.

7. Plaintiff has made a “settlement demand” of $40,000.00. Defendant has made an offer of $9,500.00.

Solution

In this case the defendant FB Grocery is guilty of causing injury to Fred. There was a slippery substance on aisle five and Fred slipped due to that. As per the law of a Premises Liability case in the State of Texas the condition \"a\" is satisfied as the premise was dangerous. Fred cannot be said to be negligent as he never expected any slippery substance on the floor of the grocery (nor would any normal person expect the same). So this cannot be said to be a case of \"comparitive negligence\" as Fred could not be said to be negligent as no normal person would expect the floor to be slippery. Usually there are warnings through signboards that communicate to the customers that the floor has been wiped and it is slippery. However, in this case no sign was in place apparently.

Under the circumstances, i would recommend going for trial as the settlement amount being offered by defendant is a low amount of $9,500. Actual medical expenses of Fred is 4300+1800+3200 = 9,300. Over this Fred suffered from mental pain and agony which will have to be paid for. Thus $9,500 is not a prudent or a rational offer and hence cannot be accepted. I am representing the plaintiff and will settle for nothing less than $40,000 considering the mental pain and agony and the possible future surgery of bulging disk.I would file the case in Texas because even under the principle of comparative negligence, the negligence of Fred is 0% and hence the defendent is 100% negligent (as the criteria \"a\" can be proved easily). There is no criminal liability as no criminal act was committed. No punitive damages as FB Grocery is getting the aisle checked every 15 minutes and so there is no need to reform or deter FB Grocery. If parties want to settle the case then i will use mediation as it is a simpler method of alternative dispute resolution which not only costs less but takes less time as well.