Part 1a. Edie is more likely to win a negligence case as Foods is responsible for duty of care towards its customers. Here, Foods had violated the duty of care by not maintaining proper tiles which would sustain water flow. Edie has maximum possibility of winning the case against Foods. Since there was a heavy rainfall, the ceiling tile in Foods got dislocated and fell over peanuts which caused Edie slip and fall on the floor. There are five factors in a negligence case. The factors of a negligence case are:

A duty of care towards the plaintiff by the dependent

Maintaining standards below the standard of care which would lead to a breach of care

An accident or injury caused

Cause in fact

Proximate cause

Fall of conduct below the applicable standard of care that amounts to a breach of that duty

An injury or loss

In the above case, the plaintiff Edie had sustained injuries which were due to the negligence by the management of Foods in maintaining safe environment for its customers. In order to prove this case as a case of negligence Edie must prove that Food's management should have checked the damage to the tile beforehand and repaired it or Food's management was aware of the damage to the tile but did not repair it intentionally or Food's management has purposefully done the damage. Either way she needs to prove that Food's management was involved in the accident to occur.

B. Foods can counter the negligence by taking the consideration of Comparative Negligence. They can defend themselves by stating that Edie should have been careful while entering and should have seen the peanuts on the floor and avoid not stepping on them. Another defense that they can put forward is that Edie should have informed the staff that the peanuts were lying the floor ne request them to clean it, rather she chose to walk on it. These defenses would reduce the liability of Foods towards Edie. The best possible remedy for Foods is to defend itself through Assumption of risk in which they can state that Edie was aware of the hazard but took the risk of stepping on the peanuts and falling down on her own risk and Foods is not liable for that.

Foods’ manager did not have any clue of the leaking roof or of the dangerously spilled peanuts. The danger was not caused by Food or its employees, but was a result of heavy rains. Although cause of rains is not in their hands but apparently, the consequences of the rains and rain after affects were in their hands of the Foods management, whose responsibility is to check the building for any kind of damages. It is important to note that Edie must prove that Foods was partially responsible for the accident in order to win against it.

Foods owes a duty of care to its employees as well as to its customers to provide them with a safe environment. But it did not maintain its roof well enough to sustain rainfall. In order to prove that Foods violated its duty of care, Edie must show that either

Any person in Foods must have observed the dangerous condition and repaired it

Employees at Foods knew about the situation, but did nothing

Employees at Foods caused the dangerous condition.