Friday, April 3, 2009

Slip and Fall Cases

I mean literally slip and fall, then try to sue someone because you hurt yourself. These cases tend to favor the defendant, because people have a duty to watch where they are going. Of course, the defendant will also have a duty to keep things reasonably safe. Let’s see how these duties are balanced.

In slip and fall cases, the plaintiff has a burden of production towards one of the following four scenarios:
1. Smooth/Slippery Surface (usually from cleaning)
The defendant must have applied the product in the customary manner (safety cones, not using a ridiculous amount of the cleaning product, etc.)
2. Tracked-In Water
In Ohio, the defendant has very little duty near the door. You need to be aware that water is often tracked in. At some point (depending on the case) you cross the threshold into an area where the defendant has a duty.
3. Defect in the Surface
There are specific rules in each jurisdiction (e.g. a hole must be X square inches)
4. Foreign Substance
The plaintiff must prove one of the following three:
a. the defendant placed the substance there
b. the defendant knew the substance was there, and had an opportunity to clean it up
c. the substance was there long enough that the defendant should have noticed it

Lipman v. Super-X Drug Corp. (1989, Ohio)

Facts
Lipman was shopping at Super X. She slipped on a substance, fell, and hurt herself. She testified that it was “wax…or something like that”.

Question
Was Super X negligent?

Holding
No

Reasoning
There is no evidence of the store owner’s negligence. The plaintiff failed to establish the substance, a negligent act, or an omission.

Goddard v. Boston and Maine RR Co. (1901, Mass)

Facts
Goddard was a passenger on the railroad. While exiting the car, he stepped onto a banana peel on the platform. Goddard slipped, fell, and was injured. Testimony showed that the banana peel was still yellow at the time of the accident.

Question
Was this negligence?

Holding
No

Reasoning
Goddard failed to establish a duty. He was unable to prove that the banana peel was there long enough that it should have been cleaned up.

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (1911, Mass)

Facts
The plaintiff asked an employee of the train station for directions to a train. While following the agent, she stepped on a banana peel. You know what happened next.

Testimony showed that the peel was “black, dry, and gritty”. It was also described as “trampled and flattened down”.

Question
Did Anjou meet her burden of production/establish duty?

Holding
Yes

Reasoning
The banana was there long enough that it should have been cleaned up.

And the winner is…
Anjou
Also, physical comedy.

summarized from Life of a Law Student

No comments: