Essay Flashcards

Nova Center, Inc., a busy office building, is sued by a visitor, Lina, who slips on a damp patch near the main entrance after a sprinkler leak. Nova Center maintains a due-diligence program: daily safety rounds by facilities staff; a spill-response protocol to cordon off and dry wet areas within 15 minutes; an incident log; and a policy to repair or replace flooring within 24 hours of detection. On the day in question, the sprinkler leak produced a slick patch; a staff member posted a wet-floor sign within 1 minute, the area was cordoned within 2 minutes, and a mop-down began within 5 minutes; the patch remained wet for 14 minutes before Lina slipped. Nova Center pleads the defense of due diligence, arguing 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 Nova Center’s program and actions satisfy the due-diligence standard under the circumstances? Conclude whether the defense should succeed or whether liability should attach.