GLS Assessment Test

Submitted by
Anirudh Tripathi
Place
Date: 28 April, 2023.

1
Section 1: US Legal Research
QUESTION 1:How do you prove fault in accidents on dangerous or defective
property in California?
Answer:
California's premises liability laws is essential for both property owners and guests.

According to the 2011 California Code Civil Code DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 -
3272.9] Part 3. Obligations imposed by law Section 17141: Every person is accountable for the
consequences of their actions, that are the result of their willfulness and any harm caused to
another by a lack of ordinary care or skill on their part when managing their property or person,
with the exception of those who have injured themselves intentionally or through a lack of
ordinary care. The need to employ ordinary care and skill mandated by this provision is not
waived by the design, distribution, or marketing of firearms and ammunition. The Title on
Compensatory Relief establishes the scope of obligation in these situations.2

Proving Negligence and Fault in Court

This is one of the most challenging things about premises liability cases. Each case hinges on
whether the property owner took reasonable precautions to make the accident unlikely to occur
and whether you were negligent in failing to recognize or avoid the situation that led to your
injury.
Four components of negligence duty, breach, causation, and damages must be proven by the
plaintiff in order to establish carelessness and responsibility in court. An obligation between the
defendant and the plaintiff must have existed, and that duty must have been broken. The plaintiff
must have suffered harm as a result of the violation of duty, and there must have been financial
loss as a result.3

1
California Civil Code Section 1714(a), (“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts,
but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or
her property or person…”); see, for example, Dix v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Oct. 26,
2020), 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532, 56 Cal. App. 5th 590.
2
Ibid.
3
California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 1000. Premises Liability — Essential Factual Elements. See also Brooks
v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611; Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132;
Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.

2
QUESTION 2: What is the procedure for naming "Estate" as Defendant in Texas? Can we
name the Personal Representative or the Estate itself as the Defendant?
Answer:
To name an estate as a defendant in Texas, one must follow certain procedural requirements.
According to Rule 26 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 4, the representative of the estate
should be named as the defendant, rather than the estate itself. The representative of the estate
may be an executor or administrator, as appointed by the court or named in the decedent's will. If
a representative has not been appointed, then the court may appoint one.
Additionally, it is important to consider the limitations and requirements for the serving process
on an estate. Under Rule 109 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 5, the process should be
served on the representative of the estate at the representative's residence, or on an agent or
attorney authorized to receive service on behalf of the representative.
It is generally not recommended to name an estate as a defendant, as it may not be legally
permitted, and may affect the ability to recover damages. However, if the representative of the
estate cannot be identified, then a plaintiff may name the estate as a defendant but should consult
with an experienced attorney to ensure that all legal requirements are met.
Furthermore, in Texas, the Probate Code contains specific provisions regarding the liability of an
estate for the debts and obligations of the decedent. Under section 322 of the Texas Estates
Code6, a personal representative of the estate may be liable for wrongful acts related to the
decedent's estate. If the personal representative acts in a way that breaches their fiduciary duties,
they may be held personally liable for damages.
In conclusion, to name an estate as a defendant in Texas, the representative of the estate should
be named rather than the estate itself. It is important to follow the proper procedural
requirements for the serving process on the estate and its representative.

4
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26 - Parties Plaintiff and Defendant.
<https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.26.htm> accessed 28 April 2023.
5
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 109 - Service and Return.
<https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.109.htm> accessed 28 April 2023.
6
Texas Estates Code, Section 322 - Liability of Personal Representative.
<https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ES/htm/ES.322.htm> accessed 28 April 2023.

3
Section II: Analytical Reasoning

Question 3: Do you think ‘Willful Misconduct’ Cause of Action is applicable in this case?
Please cite reasons in support of your point.

Answer:

California Civil Code 1714 outlines liability for injuries caused by another’s negligence. For
property owners in California, this refers to premises liability. This legal concept says owners are
responsible for keeping their property free of hazardous conditions by performing routine
inspections. They must repair, replace, or provide reasonable warning about unsafe property
conditions to keep visitors safe.
As stated in the facts given Decedent ABC was the tenant in John Doe’s apartment. Hence,
“John Doe” should be held liable for Willful misconduct and negligence as It is “ A slip and
fall accident” which is a form of negligence that falls under the legal concept of premises
liability. In California, the owner of an apartment building has a  legal duty to maintain  the
building and property that it sits on. Most importantly, landlords may have a greater duty of
care to tenants for slip-and-fall hazards located in the common areas of an apartment building or
complex.
As such, both must be free from dangers or unreasonable risks of personal injury to tenants
and their guests. If you’re injured as a result of the negligence of an owner when you’re a
tenant on the premises of an apartment building or complex, you’re likely  entitled to seek
compensation for the damages that you suffered.

As mentioned in the case there was an extremely slippery floor condition at the premises which
was known by the owner. The absence of a wet floor sign has certainly caused a slip and fall
incident.

The property owner is responsible for providing a safe environment or giving adequate warning
of hazards such as a wet floor to prevent an accident or slip. Landlord knew of the problem and
did not do anything to mitigate the risk.
Breach of duty has constitute failing to put up a wet floor sign when there is a known slippery
surface. And this caused the fracture of her ankle and later on she passed away.
Defendant’s careless and negligent conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s
death.
Defendant’s damages include death and medical expenses.
Furthermore, Defendant made a voluntary decision to violate numerous safety codes and
guidelines regarding the safety of the tenant by allowing such a dangerous and hazardous
condition on the property and failing to properly warn of its danger.
“Willful misconduct can be understood as an act of intentionally doing something or abstaining
from doing something in a reckless manner and appreciating and knowing the fact that the
concerned act will proximately cause harm or injury to another person. It is somewhat a breach
of what customs and law expect a normally prudent person is to do or not to do under a given
situation.”
Willful misconduct in such a special condition means misconduct to which the will is the party
as contradistinguished from accident, and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable

4
negligence, and involves that a person willfully misconducts himself who knows and appreciates
that it is wrong to conduct on his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail, or to omit to
do (as the case may be), a particular thing, and yet intentionally does, or fails or omits to do it, or
persists in the act, failure or omission, regardless of consequences.”
The term 'willful misconduct' has a meaning in the law, in additional to that which they have in
common usage. If we were to use the words in their ordinary sense, they would mean simply
indulging in wrongful conduct by conscious choice. Such conduct might consist of doing
something which ought not to be done, or in failing to do something that ought to be done. But in
order to be a basis for liability to a guest under our law the misconduct must be something more
than intentional and wrongful; it must be done under circumstances which show either
knowledge that serious injury to the guest probably will result, or a wanton and reckless
disregard of the possible results.
Willful misconduct is often seen as an act opposite to accident or ordinary negligence and
involves an intentional act that the doer knows to be reckless and still does not care about the ill
consequences. The same principle was stated in the leading case of Forder v Great Western
Railway Co [1905] 2 KB 532, Lord Alverstone CJ and it was stated that:
” Willful misconduct means misconduct to which the will is a party as contradistinguished from
accident, and is far beyond any negligence, even gross or culpable negligence, and involves that
a person willfully misconducts himself, who knows and appreciates that it is wrong to conduct in
his part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail to omit to do (as the case may be), a
particular thing, and yet intentionally does or fails or omits to do it, or persists in the act, failure
or omission, regardless of the consequences”.

5
Question 4: Please state the legal theories (causes of action) and facts supporting your
contention in order to file this civil lawsuit.
Answer:
It is clear from the facts above mentioned that XYZ and ABC entered into a contract over the
mail in which ABC was supposed to write software for XYZ’s website and in return, XYZ will
pay a total of 20,000 dollars. ABC completed most of his part and sent it to XYZ, until then only
4000 dollars were paid by XYZ to ABC, and after analyzing ABC’s work XYZ refused to
continue with the contract which eventually resulted in the incident mentioned in the problem.
According to the facts of the case here ABC can sue XYZ on the following cause of actions
1. Breach of Contract
2. Causing injury according to the California Premises liability laws
3. For breaking the window of ABC’s rented car.

For the first cause of action ABC can sue XYZ in a civil court for complete payment of the
contract or for the proportionate payment according to the ratio of the work done by him.
For the 2nd cause of action by which ABC sprained his ankle by falling because of the loose
gravel on the front porch of XYZ. Here XYZ being the owner of the property is liable for the
injury caused to ABC according to the California Code Civil Code Section 1714. 7 According to
this, every person is accountable for the consequences of their actions, including those that are
the result of their willfulness, as well as for any harm caused to another by a lack of ordinary
care or skill on their part when managing their property or person, with the exception of those
who have injured themselves intentionally or through a lack of ordinary care. The need to
employ ordinary care and skill mandated by this provision is not waived by the design,
distribution, or marketing of firearms and ammunition. The Title on Compensatory Relief
establishes the scope of obligation in these situations.
In the case of Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, 8 it was stated that a landowner’s duty of care to
avoid exposing others to a risk of injury is not limited to injuries that occur on premises owned
or controlled by the landowner. Rather, the duty of care encompasses a duty to avoid exposing
persons to risks of injury that occur off-site if the landowner’s property is maintained in such a
manner as to expose persons to an unreasonable risk of injury offsite.
And for the third cause of action, the plaintiff can sue XYZ for the compensation which he had
to pay for the damage caused by XYZ to the rented car.
Apart from that ABC can sue for the overall compensation of 15,000 dollars which he paid to the
hospital for the treatment of his injuries plus the cost of the suit.
7
The 2011 California Code Civil Code Division 3. Obligations [1427 - 3272.9] Part 3. Obligations imposed by law
Section 1714.
8
Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 38.

6
7