jurisdiction does recognize negligence.
Mark sued a bank for injuries. He was not paying attention as he entered the bank because he was
looking at his phone. And he fell suffering $10,000 in injuries. Prior to the fall, the janitor had buffed the
floor. The janitor had an IQ of 70. Normally, the janitor was closely supervised. However, today his
manager was extremely tired, and the manager didn’t notice that the janitor had carelessly used way too
much floor wax that was extremely slippery. Is the bank liable for the janitor’s negligence (be sure to go
through all the elements.) Additionally, note that under the doctrine of respondeat superior the bank
WILL be liable for any potential negligence of the janitor employee? What defenses will the bank assert?
Assume that the jurisdiction does not recognize assumption of risk or contributory negligence. The
jurisdiction does recognize the defense of comparative negligence.