Ms$.$ Calzone, whether or not she would be found negligent depends on several factors. In a negligence case, Mr$.$ Jones must prove four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. As a restaurant owner, Ms$.$ Calzone has a duty to maintain a safe environment for her customers. Mr$.$ Jones will need to prove that Ms$.$ Calzone breached this duty by showing that Ms$.$ Calzone knew or should have known about the hazardous conditions $($the spilled soda and the broken tile$)$ and failed to address them in a reasonable amount of time. He must also demonstrate that this breach directly caused his fall and subsequent injury. Given that the spill occurred only $5$ minutes before the fall, it might be argued that Ms$.$ Calzone did not have sufficient time to clean it up$.$ However, the broken tile could be seen as a longer$-$standing issue that Ms$.$ Calzone should have addressed.

To defend the case, I should challenge the cause by arguing that it is unclear whether the spilled soda or the broken tile caused Mr$.$ Jones$$s fall. Emphasize that the spill happened only $5$ minutes before the fall, which may not have given Ms$.$ Calzone enough time to notice and clean it up$.$ I could also suggest that Mr$.$ Jones may have contributed to his own fall by not being careful after spilling his soda. Demonstrate that Ms$.$ Calzone has a regular maintenance and inspection routine in place to ensure the safety of your restaurant, providing records or testimony showing that she takes reasonable steps to address hazards promptly. If found negligent, argue to limit the damages by showing that Mr$.$ Jones$$s injuries were not as severe as claimed or that he failed to seek appropriate medical treatment promptly. By focusing on these strategies, Ms$.$ Calzone can build a strong defense to minimize or avoid liability in this case.

this is a discussion post from one of my classmates i am only responding back to them