The Hindu Business Line : A slip and a fall on a shop spill

SOMETIME ago, a US district court had to deal with an aggrieved customer, Linda Kurtz. She had alleged personal injury from a slip and fall in a store operated by Wal-Mart Stores in Baltimore County, Maryland. The court learnt that the spill on which Linda slipped had begun to dry at the edge; there was, thus, at least some evidence, the court had reasoned, that the liquid had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time for a person under a duty of care to discover it. Well, that meant the spill should have caught Wal-Mart's attention during the time it took for it to dry.

But the shop was not happy with the judgment and sought reconsideration. Wal-Mart reasoned that the Maryland courts "have consistently held that the condition of a hazard does not raise an inference of constructive notice." It also cited many cases to prove its point of view. However, the court did not share a similar view; it said Wal-Mart's statement of Maryland law was "overbroad." Also, that the cases cited in support were "more narrowly drawn," the court opined.

Snatches of these precedents, as cited in the recent order of the District Court of Maryland, make interesting reading.

For instance, Moulden vs Greenbelt Consumer Services was about a shopper who slipped on a string bean. They saw the colouring of the bean, and used it as evidence "to raise an inference that it was on the floor for an extended period." Another case that Wal-Mart cited was Burwell vs Easton Memorial Hospital, where "the plaintiff slipped on remnants of a salad spilled on a stairway and stated that the lettuce was wilted and discoloured."

There, Judge Alpert had reasoned that discoloured lettuce can't lead to an inference that the salad had been on the stairs for any length of time at all because, "the lettuce could have been brown before it ever landed on the stairs, or it could have turned brown when appellant stepped on it." (So, too, could have been the green bean in Moulden, supra). On this, James K. Bredar, Magistrate Judge of the Maryland District Court, said: "The logical implication is not the same when applied to partially dried liquid." Again, to make matters tough for Wal-Mart, Premises Liability, the treatise relied upon in part by Judge Alpert, referred also to a case "much closer factually to the one at hand."

Yet another case, Foley vs F.W. Woolworth discussed "the consistency of vomit on a stairway, being partly dry and hard," and the question that arose was if inference could have been drawn that it had been on the stairway long enough to be discovered. To this, Judge Bredar pointed out that there are insights in Premises Liability "specific to the age and appearance of debris."

Two other cases were Smith vs Wal-Mart Stores where a customer had slipped on a blue liquid, and Audas vs Montgomery Ward, involving a gooey substance that had "a glaze over the top and was crusted over." The judge explained that there is a substantive and logical difference between cases where the condition of a foreign substance, by its nature, supplies clues as to how long it has been in place and those that do not.

Wal-Mart wondered if storeowner had a duty to inspect. To clarify, Judge Bredar cited a passage from Tennant vs Shoppers Food Warehouse: "The duties of a business invitor thus include the obligation to warn invitees of known hidden dangers, a duty to inspect, and a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable dangers." Maryland clearly recognises a duty of a storeowner to inspect its premises, he reminded Wal-Mart.

In our land, however, you'd rather watch your step if walking merrily down shop aisles!

ExParte@TheHindu.co.in

More Stories on : Shopping | Ex Parte | Courts/Legal Issues

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
A slip and a fall on a shop spill

Taramati Music Fete

Honouring the true wildlife enthusiasts