Essay Flashcards

Neon Cinemas, Inc., a chain of movie theaters, is sued by a patron, Elena Santos, who slips on a wet floor near the concession stand after a spill. Neon Cinemas maintains a due-diligence program: (i) a spill-response protocol requiring immediate cordon-off of the area and a warning sign within 1 minute of spill notice, (ii) a maintenance log recording hazards and remedial actions, (iii) a policy to dry or mop the area within 4 minutes of detection, and (iv) a daily premises-safety walk. On the day of the incident, a spill occurs near the concession stand. A staff member posts a warning sign within 1 minute and cordons the area within 2 minutes; cleaning begins at 4 minutes and is completed by 8 minutes; the patch remains wet for 9 minutes before Santos slips at the 10th minute, when the area is just drying but still damp. Elena sues for damages, arguing negligence in premises safety. Neon Cinemas pleads the defense of due diligence, alleging that it exercised the care that a reasonably prudent owner would under the circumstances.
(a) Identify the doctrine and the governing rule that applies when due diligence is pleaded as a defense in a premises-liability quasi-delict.
(b) Distinguish due diligence from ordinary negligence or other defenses, and explain how it affects the burden of proof and the elements the plaintiff must establish.
(c) Apply the doctrine to the facts: does Neon Cinemas’ program and actions satisfy the due-diligence standard under the circumstances? Conclude whether the defense should succeed or whether liability should attach.