Another WASTE of court time.
Posted on 04/02/2010 6:33:27 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Peninsula man sues pet shop after slipping on dog feces
NORFOLK
By Tim McGlone The Virginian-Pilot © April 1, 2010
Robert Holloway really stepped in it when he went to PetSmart to pick up some bird seed and dog food.
According to a lawsuit filed in federal court, Holloway slipped on a pile of dog feces a year ago at a Newport News PetSmart and badly hurt his back. He also struck his head, knocking out four of his false teeth, the suit says. He's suing the chain for $1 million.
PetSmart has filed an initial reply stating that the store and its manager that day were not negligent in the accident. Pet accidents are a fact of life in its stores, where leashed pets are welcome visitors, a company spokeswoman said.
Holloway, of Poquoson, went to the Jefferson Avenue PetSmart on Jan. 18, 2009. The suit says that PetSmart and the manager should have protected him from harm.
The suit says PetSmart and its employees "negligently allowed animals to enter the premises and deposit feces in such a manner as to create a dangerous and hazardous condition."
The employees either should have known there was a pile of feces on the floor, or if they did know, they should have cleaned it up before Holloway stepped in it, the suit says.
Holloway's lawyer, Michael Goodove of Norfolk, said Holloway didn't fall to the floor after stepping in it, but his body twisted violently and he smacked his head against something nearby.
He said Holloway couldn't see the feces because its color blended in with the floor.
Holloway, 69 at the time, had to have back surgery as a result, though Goodove acknowledged that his client did have a pre-existing back problem. This incident worsened it, he said.
"That's the problem - you can bring your pet on the premises," Goodove said. "But that requires a higher level of diligence. You've got a duty to remove dangerous substances."
Holloway could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
PetSmart spokeswoman Jessica White said the company doesn't comment on litigation.
However, speaking generally, White said employees are trained to clean up messes and customers are encouraged to clean up after their pets. Every store has "oops" stations, clearly marked, with clean-up supplies.
"They're animals. There's always going to be accidents," she said from Phoenix, where the company is based.
The suit was initially filed in Norfolk Circuit Court, but PetSmart had it transferred to U.S. District Court here, where it has had success in defeating such cases.
U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Friedman dismissed a similar suit in 2008 filed by a woman who slipped and fell in dog urine at the same Newport News store, injuring her knee. The judge ruled that the woman failed to show that any store employee knew there was urine on the floor.
PetSmart is the largest pet specialty retailer in the country, with about 1,150 stores, 46,000 employees and $5 billion in annual sales.
The company's annual reports say it is a frequent target of personal injury litigation, but the costs of such suits were not released.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Holloway v. Petsmart, Inc. et al Filed: March 26, 2010 2:2010cv00132 Updated: April 2, 2010 01:35:23 Plaintiff: Robert Holloway Defendants: Greg Davis and Petsmart, Inc. Presiding Judge: District Judge Henry C. Morgan Jr. Referring Judges: Tommy E. Miller and Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller Cause Of Action: Notice of Removal-Personal Injury Court: Virginia > Eastern District Court Type: Torts - Injury > P.I.: Other
Another WASTE of court time.
Don`t Tread on Me
PetSmart isn’t too “smart” in this day and age . . . allowing animals on their premises, leashed or otherwise. A dog could bite someone. And, obviously, owners don’t always clean up after their pets. If PetSmart really thinks that having a sign in the window saying “leashed pets welcome” protects them from lawsuits, they haven’t been paying attention.
Yep, not like he couldn’t see a big brown pile on their clean tile floors. Too bad he didn’t fall face first. At least then we’d have a good pic and story to talk about. Hope the judge dismisses it, and him, quickly.
The guy makes some good points. If the floors are poop colored and they didn’t act diligently enough in a circumstance where poop lays on tile floors they were negligent.
I’ve been in several Petsmart’s and every one of them had off white/light grey tile floors.
Here is the type of frivilous case in which the plaintiff really should be required to pay court fees. Good grief - practice just a little personal responsibility!
No kidding. For crying out loud! I go to Petsmart all the time for pet supplies and love the fact that animals are welcome and encouraged there.
This could happen anywhere though. I see no reason why the venue in which this occurs should bear any responsibility for the actions of an animal owned by a third party.
And, obviously, owners don’t always clean up after their pets.
True, but this does not absolve people of the responsibility of looking where they are going, either.
This inane lawsuit is reason number 7883741904812097412073 for tort reform.
I do too - I shop for cat food there all the time and I love to see the animals. If this yahoo wins his court case, we can probably say good-bye to that.
Yeah, I just love the dog feces at PetSmart! It’s why we go there.
Too bad he didn’t fall face first? The man was 69 years old.
Well, like Rodney Dangerfield said, “you have to watch out for number 1........so you don’t step in number 2”
Gee... I wonder why there are car wrecks? Cars are 8-10 feet long, 4 feet high, weigh 2 tons yet accidents all over the place? People must be driving with their eyes closed, huh.
Okay, missed that part of the story. Now I feel like crap...no pun intended. Still...a silly lawsuit...imo.
Eyes closed...sometimes I think so. Cell phones, coffee cups, doughnuts, applying makeup, can’t let the other car get in front of me, just plain wrecklessness, etc., etc., etc.. More defensive and less offensive driving, and throw in a little common courtesy for letting people merge, and we’d have far fewer wrecks.
Drivers are just scammers, huh.
Too funny! Thanks...
I don’t think so, but I know several who should at the very least have to go back through Driver’s Education. And that’s not counting those driving on suspended/revoked licenses. Defensive driving works wonders. Always assume the other drivers don’t know what they’re doing and be ready to react.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.