Final Project - Legal Research

Fact Pattern

Samantha Smith came into your office. She was shopping at a local grocery store a few months ago and had an accident. While she was in the aisle with shower items she slipped and fell on some shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles.

Samantha had to be taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed with a broken hip and had to spend the night in the hospital. She will also have to go through many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no healthcare insurance and is a young single mother to a 2 year old son.

The store says that they were not aware of the spill of the shampoo. The store said that an employee checks the aisles for anything on the floors at the top of the hour. The day Samantha fell, the employee in charge of the aisle inspection was an older gentleman with glasses. The shampoo on the floor was a clear gel. She fell about 1:30 p.m. The store log says an inspection was last done at 12:45 p.m. The accident happened in a store in Indiana.

Secondary Sources

Timothy C. Caress & Marie Troendle Greer, Recent Developments in Indiana Tort Law, 36 IND. L. REV. 1303 (2003)

In “Recent Developments in Indiana Tort Law”, under heading II Premises Liability, the authors discuss whether a possessor of land could be held liable for injuries sustained by a third party if the possession had no previous notice of defect or dangerous situation.  In the example, Wellington Green Homeowners' Association v. Parsons, 768 N.E.2d 923 (Inc. Ct. App. 20025), the court held that the landowner could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries; because there was no proof that they landowner had or should have had any previous knowledge of the dangerous defect.  

Alan J. Jacobs, Premises Liability, 62A AM.JUR.2D § 542 (2012)

While the article “Premises Liability specifies falling on a stairway or ramp, it clarifies whether a store owner would be liable for a fall if the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the debris or litter constituting a dangerous condition.  It states the store would have had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition if it had been there long enough so that “in the exercise of ordinary care it should have been discovered by the owner.”

Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) is a great reference when needing a definition of legal terms.  For example:

Premises Liability. “A landowner's or landholder's tort liability for conditions or activities on the premises.” Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), Premises Liability

Constructive Knowledge. “Knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed by law to a given person .” Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009), Knowledge

Primary Sources

Vaughn v. National Tea Co., 328 F.2d 128 (7^th Cir. 1964)

Facts

Vaughn, Plaintiff-Appellee, slipped on a lettuce leaf and fell while shopping at National Tea Company, Defendant-Appellant.  The lettuce leaf showed evidence that it had been there for some time and had been stepped on by other customers.  The produce clerk testified that she did not remember sweeping, cleaning, mopping, or picking anything up from the produce aisle on the day prior to the slip and fall.  Plaintiff suffered a ruptured disc in her cervical spine with required surgery.  The Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for damages.  The case tried to a jury which found for the Plaintiff and awarded damages in the sum of $25,000.00.  Defendant appealed, contending that the record contains no evidence of any negligence on the part of the Defendant.

Issue

Did the Defendant-National Tea Co., have constructive or actual knowledge of the debris on the floor, therefore liable for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff-Vaughn, when she slipped and fell?

Rule

Negligence is defined as “The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others again unreasonable risk of harm.”  Black's Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)

The condition of the lettuce leaf immediately after it have been stepped upon is of probative value is determining the length of time it had been of the floor.  Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Popkins, 260 Ala. 97, 69 So.2d 274, 376; Gallagher v. Stop and Shop, Inc., 332 Mass. 560, 126 N.E.2d 190, 192; Goldsmith v. Mills, 130 Cal.App.2d 493, 279 P.2d 51, 52.  “The lettuce leaf was shown to have been dirty, crumpled and mashed.  The jury could find from that condition that it had been on the floor long enough to have raised a duty on Defendant to discover and remove it.”

Breach of Duty is defined as “The violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates one to act; esp., a fiduciary's violation of an obligation owed to another.”  Black's Law Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009)

Analysis

Because the condition of the lettuce showed that it had been on the floor for a extended period of time, the jury concluded that Defendant’s failure to discover and remove it was a breach of duty and negligent.  Defendant is liable for Plaintiff’s injuries.

Conclusion

The U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Carmichael v. Kroger, 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)

Facts

Carmichael, Appellant-Plaintiff, sued The Kroger Company, Appellee-Defendant for damages for injuries sustained in a slip and fall.   Plaintiff slipped on a broken egg and fell at approximately 2:00 p.m. in the dairy aisle of a Kroger Store.  An employee for Kroger had checked the aisle just after 2:00 p.m. and “made sure that the aisleway was clear for customers” The jury ruled in favor of the Defendant and Plaintiff appealed.

Issue

Did Defendant-Kroger, have constructive or actual knowledge of the debris on the floor, therefore liable for the injuries sustained by Carmichael-Plaintiff?

Rule

Negligence is defined as “The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others again unreasonable risk of harm.”  Black's Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)

Breach of Duty is defined as “The violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates one to act; esp., a fiduciary's violation of an obligation owed to another.”  Black's Law Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009)

Before liability may be imposed on the invitor, it must have actual or constructive knowledge of the danger. Bearman v. University of Notre Dame, Ind. App., 453 N.E.2d 1196, 1198 (1983)

Analysis

Plaintiff was unable to prove that Defendant had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of a broken egg in the dairy aisle.  Therefore, Defendant was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held liable for Plaintiff’s injuries. 

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals of Indiana held that Plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

St. Mary's Medical Center v. Loomis, 783 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

Facts

Dr. Loomis brought negligence action against hospital following a slip-and-fall on hospital premises. The Vanderburgh Superior Court, Wayne S. Trockman, J., entered judgment pursuant to jury verdict that assessed 100 percent of fault to hospital and awarded $16,950,000 in damages to surgeon. Hospital appealed.  Dr. Loomis, a neurosurgeon in private practice in Evansville, had surgery privileges at the Hospital. On November 19, 1998, Dr. Loomis was visiting his patients and stopped at the nearby pantry to pour himself a cup of coffee. While retrieving the coffee pot from the sick, Dr. Loomis slipped and fell backwards onto his left side.  Dr. Loomis injured his left flank and left elbow.  Although Dr. Loomis had surgery to repair his left elbow, his condition deteriorated until he was no longer able to perform surgery. He subsequently sold his practice.

Issue

Did the hospital know or should it have known about the dangerous condition of pantry floor where the slip-and-fall occurred, did the hospital failed to exercise reasonable care, and did water on floor cause the slip-and-fall?

Did Dr. Loomis share in the fault in the accident by failing to exercise due care for his own safety by not looking at the floor for possible dangers.

Rule

Evidence put forth by the plaintiff to defeat motion for judgment on the evidence in premises liability action need not be conclusive, only sufficient to create a reasonable inference that defendant knew of and should have remedied the dangerous condition. Rhodes v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 665 N.E.2d 1260

A customer has the duty to see and avoid obvious hazards.  Lloyd v. TG & Y Stores Co., 556 So.2d 629, 635 (La.Ct.App.1990)  This Court, however, in examining the evidence in these types of cases, took cognizance of the natural tendency of the shopper to focus on the displayed merchandise rather than down at the floor in front of him.

Analysis

Evidence had shown that, while no person testified to seeing water on the floor immediately before the accident, it was not uncommon for there to be water on the floor in that room.  Additionally, it was found that, on differing occasions, employees had complained of slipping in water spilled on the floor.

Dr. Loomis was not negligent or careless in walking across the floor.  He did not jump or run.  He simply walked to the sink, turned and took another step and slipped.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held the Defendant 100% liable for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

Statutes

Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2 (West 2011)

Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act allows a jury to consider whether the Plaintiff bears some of the fault in an accident.  If the jury finds the Plaintiff to be partially at fault, they must then decide what percentage of fault should go to each party.  If the jury finds the Defendant and the Plaintiff to each be 50% at fault, they find in favor of the Plaintiff, but multiply the amount awarded by 50% (the amount the Defendant is at fault) and that is how much the Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff.  If the Defendant is found only 49% at fault or less, the Plaintiff is awarded nothing.

Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-2-4 (West 2011)

Sec. 4. states that “An action for:  (1) injury to person or character,  (2) injury to personal property; or  (3) a forfeiture of penalty given by statute; must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues.

Administrative Agencies

Occupation Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)

Mission Statement: “With the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.”  http://www.osha.gov/about.html

While OSHA specifically relates to workers and employers, the safety standards by which employers are bound would be nearly identical to the standards that any business must provide to their customers.

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Mission Statement: “To enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity.”  http://www.ansi.org/

Products with the ANSI certification are deemed safe for consumer use as well as for the environment.  Again, this has an indirect relationship with our case.  We could check if the products used for the flooring, such as the wax, is ANSI certified. 

Helpful Websites

HG.org Legal Directories has information about different types of “slip and fall” accidents.  It provides definitions, settlement guides, information on property owner liability and likely injuries. http://www.hg.org/slip-and-fall.html

WebMD has a wealth of information on the symptoms, causes and treatment for a broken hip.  http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/broken-leg

I started my research with secondary sources such as law journals, as well as articles on FindLaw.com to familiarize myself with terms.  Using the information I gained from those, I was able to conduct a more productive search on Westlaw for relevant case law and statutes.  Statutes were a bit more difficult to narrow down, as I am unfamiliar with Indiana law.  However, a brief look at the table of contents helped quite a bit.  To narrow down my internet search for relevant websites, I choose to search only websites ending in .org.  This saved a lot of time and removed all the websites for individual law firms.

Patricia Oswalt

Law Offices of Dean Poirier, P.A.

123 Main Street

Any Town, USA 12345

Phone: (407) 555-6321

Fax: (407) 555-6754

Email: poswalt@lawoffices.com

March 8, 2012

Samantha Smith

987 Next Street

Any Town, USA 12345

Dear Ms. Smith:

You recently contacted our law firm to explore your legal options after a slip and fall at the Any Town Grocers on January 4, 2012.  From our initial interview, we learned that on the previously referenced date, you were shopping with your 2 year old son when you slipped on some shampoo that had spilled onto the floor.  This fall caused you serious injury, suffering a broken hip, and you were transported to the hospital and kept overnight. Your doctors advise this injury will require surgery and months a physical rehabilitation and cannot yet ascertain if you will suffer from permanent disability.

The store maintains they were unaware of the spill. Standard operating procedure states that an employee checks the aisles for anything on the floors at the top of the hour. However, the store log indicates that the last inspection prior to your fall was at 12:45, a full 45 minutes before you slipped and fell.  Additionally, the employee in charge of the aisle inspection was an older gentleman with glasses and the shampoo on the floor was a clear gel.  We would need to depose the employee to ascertain if he walked the full length of the aisle, inspecting the floor to both the left and the right, or if he simply stood at one end of the aisle and visually inspected from there. 

For Any Town Grocers to be liable, it must have actual or constructive knowledge of the spill.  Bearman v. University of Notre Dame, Ind. App., 453 N.E.2d 1196, 1198 (1983)  We believe the store had constructive knowledge of the spill.  This simply means that the spill had been there long enough that an employee should have discovered it and cleaned it up. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)   Any Town Grocers has a duty to make sure their store is safe for you, your son and other customers.  Their failure to do so is a breach of duty or “the failure to act as the law obligates one to act” Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)   Therefore Any Town Grocers is liable for your injuries.

Any Town Grocers is denying they are at fault for your injury, claiming you were too distracted by your son.  They maintain that you should have seen the shampoo and avoided it.  This brings up the issue of comparative fault.  Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act allows a jury to consider

whether the Plaintiff bears some of the fault in an accident.  If the jury finds the Plaintiff to be partially at fault, they must then decide what percentage of fault should go to each party.  If the jury finds the Defendant and the Plaintiff each 50% at fault, they find in favor of the Plaintiff, but multiply the amount awarded by 50% (the amount the Defendant is at fault) and that is how much the Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff.  If the Defendant is found only 49% at fault or less, the Plaintiff is awarded nothing.  Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2 (West 2011)   Obviously, we will deny that your son’s behavior was an issue.  

Any Town Groceries will be relying on case law such as Lloyd v. TG & Y Stores Co., 556 So.2d 629, 635 (La.Ct.App.1990) in which it was held that “A customer has the duty to see and avoid obvious hazards.”  However, we will argue that a clear gel shampoo on a shiny waxed floor is not an “obvious hazard.”  Additionally, appellate courts have taken cognizance of the natural tendency of the shopper to focus on the displayed merchandise rather than down at the floor in front of them. St. Mary's Medical Center v. Loomis, 783 N.E.2d 274 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

For further information on common slip and fall accidents, visit HG.org Legal Directories website at http://www.hg.org/slip-and-fall.html.  You can also find information regarding a broken hip on the WebMD website, specifically at http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/broken-leg.

We hope that we have answered your questions regarding this matter.  If you have any further concerns or questions, please feel free to contact us at (407) 555-6321 or via email at poswalt@lawoffices.com.  You can contact me directly to set an appointment to speak with the attorney, who can explain the steps in filing an action against Any Town Grocers.  Please be aware that you only have 2 years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit.  After that, the statute of limitations will run and you will be legally unable to recover damages.  We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Oswalt

Paralegal for Attorney Dean Poirier

Memorandum of Law

Congratulations, YOU ARE THE RECIPIENT OF THE BOOK AWARD FOR THIS PAPER!  IT IS EASILY THE BEST AMONG MY SECTIONS THIS TERM.
This is an outstanding work at this stage of your studies, worthy of consideration by prospective employers. This work demonstrates a superior understanding of the elements and principles of law; a proper analysis of the elements and/or principles of law; and analyzes, synthesizes and evaluated the fact patterns at a high level of comprehension.
It exemplifies superior research and writing skills, and mastery of available legal technology.  I believe that you can use this in an employment portfolio, and represent that out of the many papers I have graded on this project over the many terms I have taught at Kaplan, this one is superior.
I would like your permission to use it in coming terms as a model for other students to compare their work to. I of course would make sure to remove your individual name, id, etc.  Once again CONGRATULATIONS ON THIS FINE WORK!
Judge James J  Kent, Associate Professor, Kaplan University

Memorandum

To:                         Senior Partner

From:                     Patricia Oswalt

Date:                      11/29/2011

Case:                      Natalie Attired v. New Mexico Employment Security Board

Office File:             PA205-02

Docket Number:     NA

Re:                         Whether Natalie’s tattoo and her refusal to remove it constituted misconduct as defined by § 59-9-5(b) N.M.S.A. 1953

Statement of Facts

Our client is Natalie Attired.  Natalie was denied unemployment compensation on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct”.  Natalie wishes to file a claim against NMESB for wrongfully withholding her unemployment compensation.

Natalie began employment with Biddy’s Tea House and Croissanterie in May, 2009.   During her employment, Natalie has received four evaluations, which improved consistently.  There is no employee manual or written policy about employee conduct.  In June 2010, Natalie purchased a full-sleeve tattoo which covered the entire upper right arm, the lower portion of which could be seen below the short sleeve uniform.  The owner, Ms. Baker told Natalie that if she did not remove the tattoo she would be fired.  Natalie refused to remove the tattoo, worked the rest of the week and was given her termination notice on Friday.  Ms. Baker was unable to provide proof of a decline in sales during Natalie’s employment, but provided names of two customers who requested to be moved from Natalie’s section due to the tattoo.  Natalie filed for unemployment compensation in July 2010, which was denied on the grounds that she was terminated for “misconduct” and was therefore ineligible for benefits.

Issues:

1.      Does Natalie’s refusal to remove her tattoo constitute misconduct under § 59-9-5(b)N.M.S.A. 1953?

2.      Can Ms. Baker provide proof that Natalie’s appearance negatively affected business as to cause reduced sales and profits?

3.      Were there any prior acts by Natalie in which the Totality of circumstances and the “last straw” doctrine would apply?

Brief Answer:

1.      No. Natalie’s refusal to remove her tattoo, by itself does not constitute misconduct, as there was no rule or policy in place forbidding tattoos.

2.      Ms. Baker has no proof of a decline in sales or profits during Natalie’s employment.  However, patrons did register complaints regarding the tattoo. 

3.      No.  Natalie’s reviews have been primarily satisfactory and any specified “Areas for Development” or “Goals and Objectives” were addressed and resolved.

Analysis and Discussion:

Issue:

Does Natalie’s refusal to remove her tattoo constitute misconduct under § 59-9-5(b) N.M.S.A. 1953?

Rule Statement:

An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment;

Rule Explanation:

There is no definition for the term “misconduct” listed under unemployment compensation law.  Therefore, the following definition has been adopted.

. . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.  Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 1976 NM 555 P.2d 696

Rule Application:

There were no guidelines, written or otherwise, forbidding tattoos.  Natalie’s tattoo did not affect her ability to perform her duties nor was it a safety hazard.  Additionally, the cost for tattoo removal was prohibitively expensive when other alternatives (such as covering the tattoo with long sleeves or a bandage) were available.

Conclusion:

Natalie Attired’s refusal to remove a tattoo does not constitute misconduct under § 59-9-5(b) N.M.S.A. 1953?

Issue:

Can Ms. Baker provide proof that Natalie’s appearance negatively affected business as to cause reduced sales and profits?

Rule Statement:

An individual shall be disqualified for and shall not be eligible to receive benefits if it is determined by the division that the individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's employment;

Rule Explanation:

In Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor, the court held that the employee’s hair color did not significantly affect business as to warrant misconduct.  It’s Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor Employment Security Department, Board of Review (In re Claim of Apodaca), 1989 769 P.2d 88.

Rule Application:

As in Burger Time, Inc. v. New Mexico Department of Labor, Ms. Baker was unable to provide any proof that Natalie’s change in appearance negatively affected business as to cause reduced sales and profits.   Although she did provide the names of two customers who complained of Natalie’s tattoo, two complaints combined in one event does not warrant termination.  As before, alternatives to the removal of the tattoo were available.

Conclusion:

Ms. Baker is unable to prove that Natalie’s tattoo substantially affected business.

Issue:

Were there any prior acts by Natalie in which the Totality of circumstances and the “last straw” doctrine would apply?

Rule Statement:

“Totality of Circumstances” or “Last Straw” doctrine is when a series of minor infractions are taken in totality.

Rule Explanation:

In such cases where the employee has committed several minor infractions over a period of time, the Totality of Circumstances or last straw could doctrine would apply constituting misconduct to the level in which the claimant would be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, et al., 1988 NM 764 P.2d 1316

Rule Application:

In Rodman v. New Mexico Employment Security Department, the claimant had numerous, repeated violations for which she was reprimanded by the employer.  Following each reprimand, the claimant failed to resolve the issues.  In Natalie’s case, there were no such reprimands.  Any suggested improvements listed on otherwise satisfactory reviews were addressed and resolved.

Conclusion:

Because Natalie had no prior incidents in which she was reprimanded and all suggestions for improvement on her employer reviews were addressed and resolved, the Totality of Circumstances or Last Straw doctrine does not apply.

Bridge

I am just a bridge.  I am not a shining monument of human technology crossing miles of ocean or connecting great cities.  I am small, wooden, and rather inconspicuous connecting one small path to another.  I might be difficult to find for unfamiliar travelers.  There are no signs pointing the way.  I can be circumvented although doing so might prolong the journey or make it more difficult.  I am of no specific importance to anyone.

I am just a bridge.  I connect to pieces of the path together.  I am neither here nor there.  I cannot move forward, yet neither can I go back.  I am umoving, yet impermanent. I facilitate the journey for fellow travelers, yet have never seen the destination. 

I am just a bridge.  When my purpose here is done... when the soul I am purposed for finally crosses my rotting planks, I will fall into the flowing stream of consciousness.  This stream to which I have been so close for so long, yet unable to touch, sparkling with light.  I have been looking into this stream of consciousness my entire life.  Unable to let go of the path behind me or before me and unable to move in either direction.

I am just an old wooden bridge.  I blend into my surroundings.  I reach towards the past and the future, but stay anchored in the present. I look forward to the day that I can no longer hold on; to the day when I no longer have to.  When I can re enter the unbroken flow of thought and awareness and join the Source of my existence.

Until then, I am content and grateful to be just a bridge.  One of countless facilitators for even more countless soul journeyers. To have a purpose... a specific purpose... to be a bridge.

Dog

I've heard many people say that animals do not have souls. Others have admitted that they do, but that they are not as advanced as ours. This just simply cannot be true. Allow me to explain my reasoning.

In Genesis, The International Version, it says after God created Man:

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

I can understand that. We need the animals and plants to survive. What it doesn't address is that the animals and plants do not need us. As George Carlin said, "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance." Of course, he's talking about the entire planet and the ridiculously egocentric opinion that we, as a species, will kill it. Personally, I believe that we will kill ourselves long before we are able to destroy Earth. 100 years after humans are gone, there will be little evidence that we ever existed.

So let me get back to the reason for this post in the first place. My brother drove me and my dog Xena to the vet today. Xena was old, tired, and worn, and I decided to let her go today. To comfort me, my brother said that he believes that dogs have souls and that their souls return to God. He also said that a dogs soul was more primitive than ours. I've been thinking about this.

We can teach dogs to sit, speak, shake and other stupid little tricks. But really, in the great scheme of things, what are we truly able to offer them. Nothing. God didn't place the animals here so that we could raise their spirits to Him. He put them here to raise ours! The years I was blessed with Xena taught me love, compassion, worship, humility, trust and more. I was able to see examples of those lessons from God through Xena. I was able to teach her to sit, speak, lay down and shake hands for a treat. Big deal!

Her presence in my life brought me closer to God. How could I possibly believe that her soul is in any way less important or more primitive than mine?

Heaven, Hell and Original Sin

I've read of Original Sin; where Adam and Eve ate the fruit they weren't supposed to eat and God subsequently cast them out of the Garden of Eden. I've also read how Lucifer was cast out of Heaven as a traitor of God and into Hell, deep beneath the Earth.

The stories mentioned above suggest three separate physical places. I wonder if this is so. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Up to that point, they were ignorant of needless things such as want, shame or guilt. This "want, shame and guilt" among other human feelings destroyed their ability to see the Garden of Eden any longer. The Tree of Knowledge was misnamed in the Bible. As not only did it not provide the true Knowledge that every human is searching for, it infected the human race with a false knowledge.

I thinks it's possible that we are still in the Garden of Eden, but that we are too ignorant or afflicted by this false knowledge to see Eden for what it is. Nature. Spirit pulls me towards nature and beauty. Spirit shows me examples of perfection everyday. It is from there we can learn just as much as is written in ancient texts.

Hell, literally translated, means "Without God." I believe that any human who does not believe in Spirit, by whatever name they choose, currently lives in Hell. Many people who subscribe to atheism make very bad choices, and live lives that they are unhappy with. They are filled with these wants and needs simply because the basic necessity of the human soul (Spirit) has been cast out and denied.

It is impossible for any human to be purified while still residing in the body. When our bodies finally die, our soul is led to the Underworld (known to some as Purgatory), where we must be cleansed. In this Underworld, we are stripped of our pride, ego and false knowledge. We are shown our life and how we lived it. We are shown our mistakes and how we affected others. Before we are free to leave the Underworld, we must accept the ignorant, pathetic wretch of a person we once were. We must learn from our lives here on Earth. We must be able to understand the lessons that God placed before us. When we can do that, we can then accept Spirit fully and return home to be one with Spirit.

This idea leads me to ponder that we are surrounded by Heaven and Hell every single day. And as we go through our lives and learn the lessons placed before us, we are afforded glimpses of both all the time.

Lessons in Life

So many people with so many different paths to God. I believe that each person's path is individual. We place ourselves here to learn a lesson ourselves, or as a support for another soul with a particular hard lesson to learn. I believe in Karma, what comes around, goes around.

I picture the universe as a giant web... and each person is microscopically small and scattered on this web. When something happens in our lives, when a choice is made, it results in a vibration throughout the web. Those that are in the closest proximity on the web will feel the most consequences (good or bad) from the initial vibration. Those on the complete other side of the web may never notice a change at all.

But think of this... There are billions of humans making choices everyday, all day long, creating good and bad vibrations constantly. That is why someone who is kind and loving and good and faithful can still die for apparently no reason at all.

Let's make this somewhat easier to understand with a hypothetical situation. A 16 year old girl is driving to the store for her mother to get milk for tomorrow's Sunday breakfast. She is driving the speed limit, wearing her seat-belt and carefully following all the rules of the road.

A few miles away, a drunken young man is leaving the bar and getting in his car to drive home. They unfortunately cross paths with devastating consequences. The young man survives, what the young girl dies.

Who is the lesson for? The young girl dies. She is not here to learn from this lesson. She is the catalyst. Her family must learn to deal with her death and how to continue living. Certainly no small task. The drunk driver must learn to deal with his guilt and the consequences of his actions. Another not so pleasant task. Some of the individuals will learn the lesson that God intended for them. Some will not. Some will change their lives for the better, some will be able to forgive themselves and others. Some won't.

But the consequences of the tragic end of this young girls life may not stop there. You have the parents of the drunk driver. They will have to deal with the fact that their son killed another human being. They will also have to deal with the loss of their son to prison. What a horrifying thought in itself. How could the mother of one ever face the mother of the other? How could the words "I'm sorry" ever be enough?

The bartender that knowingly allowed this young man to drive home drunk; his friends; a passerby with a cell phone who saw him swerving down the darkened road; all of these people had the chance to change the circumstances leading up to the event. But for whatever reason... chose not to.

Whatever you may believe, whether it be God or nothing at all, lessons are still going to be learned in such a situation. It's embedded in our nature to learn from our mistakes. When such an opportunity arises, learn the lesson that has been placed before you. Do not let the moment pass by in vain.