Posted on 04/02/2010 6:33:27 AM PDT by KeyLargo
Assuming that it happened close to the article, no it is not frivolous.
The store does not dispute the event, just their liability.
The public is invited to enter into the store. The store has an obligation to provide a safe environment to the invited public.
Slip/trip/fall hazards are the store’s responsibility to mitigate to prevent injury to their customers.
No one “expects” to find animal feces or other slip/trip/fall hazards in the walkway.
An elderly man, who may not have the best of balance and eyesight to begin with, slipped on animal feces that were the same color as the floor.
That man suffered injuries that required surgery and dental work.
If he had slipped on mop water or a leaky pipe would it still seem frivolous to you?
Just because it was poop doesn’t make it any less serious as far as injuries and damages go.
The store should have cleaned up the poop before this happened.
They didn’t and someone got hurt.
They will be liable if this article is accurate an portrayal.
I think this one caught people’s eye because it involves ONE MILLION DOLLARS! (For stepping in dog poop.)
Paris. New Year's Day 1980.
We are leaving our hotel room way too early in the morning to get back on the bus to take us back to our Army base in Germany.
As I leave the hotel, I see this HUGE, fresh dog poop.
What made me burst into laughter (before LOL was invented) was the shoe print that went into a long slide through the poop!
There, on the cement, someone stepped in and slid through the poop.
I had a hangover but my day was far better than the poor soul who slid in the poop that morning.
I was in a pet store yesterday looking at fish.
I was alert for water on the floor. I expected it.
When I went over to look at the birds and ferrets I did not look on the floor for dog poop because I did not expect it. Nor do most people.
Key thought on expectations; if in any way it surprises you then you did not expect it. If you are dissappointed in any way if it doesn't happen then you expected it.
Probably. I thought that was a bit high myself but they have to have a starting point for settlement negotiations.
Sure, it does smell like BS to me, but I don’t see any reason to doubt that the fella stepped in it inadvertently.
“The store does not dispute the event, just their liability.”
Of course.
“The store has an obligation to provide a safe environment to the invited public.”
What constitutes a safe environment? A customer can trip on his own shoelace - is the store supposed to prevent that as well? And if so, how would you recommend they do that?
“Slip/trip/fall hazards are the store’s responsibility to mitigate to prevent injury to their customers.”
I don’t think so. Instead, the store needs to provide an environment that is not unnecessarily dangerous. There is a point at which people need to take some responsibility for their own well being.
“An elderly man, who may not have the best of balance and eyesight to begin with, slipped on animal feces that were the same color as the floor.”
There are plenty of 69-year old men who shouldn’t be classified as “elderly.” In any case, Remember this is a store in which it’s likely that customers will encounter animals. If the customer doesn’t like it, he shouldn’t enter. Again, it’s that personsl responsibility thing.
Wouldn’t it be more prudent for the victim to simply ask for recompense for his medical bills stemming from the fall?
“Key thought on expectations; if in any way it surprises you then you did not expect it. If you are dissappointed in any way if it doesn’t happen then you expected it.”
Are you saying retailers should ensure their customers against suprises? Unfortunately or not, depending on your POV, life is made up of surprises - some positive, some not. Surely not not suggesting that we should be shielded from surprise.
“When I went over to look at the birds and ferrets I did not look on the floor for dog poop because I did not expect it.”
Why not? Dog owners aren’t confined to one aisle in the store. They’re free to move about and they take their dogs with them. A dog could just as easily be in the fish aisle as anywhere else. If you tripped over fish food in the dog aisle, would you blame the store for that? It would be unexpected also, I would think, and it would mean that a PetSmart employee wasn’t running around following every single customer to ensure they didn’t get surprised.
Elayne, I used to work in commercial insurance loss prevention and loss control.
I am not making things up as I go or simply expressing my uneducated opinions.
The store has on obligation for a customer’s shoelace but they do have an obligation to keep their floors free from known or foreseeable hazards.
The store either has a duty to keep its floors clean or it doesn’t.
If it doesn’t then there are no safeguards to the public at all. None.
If it does, then it failed in this occasion.
Again, if he had slipped due to water on the floor would you still consider it frivolous?
Or do you consider back surgery and dental work frivolous?
No. Just giving a simple practical definition of expectations.
Do you expect clean floors at the supermarket or do you expect them to have liquid, powders, and glass?
I wouldn't shop at a supermarket where I "expected" spills and debris. An expectation indicates a normal condition, not something that deviates from the norm.
The expectation in a public occupancy is for the walkways to be free from slip, trip, and fall hazards. One may excerise more care and alertness in some areas but one does not "expect" dog poop on the floor as a normal condition to any visit to a pet store.
Question: what stores do you visit that normally have poop on the floor to the point that you actually expect it as a normal condition?
Very well stated Eagle Eye. This is, after all, why businesses have insurance. This spreads the risk around the entire pool. The cost of the risk created by the shop’s business venture certainly should have to be borne by the hapless customer.
Should = should not
I’m confident that you know what you’re talking about - I’m not at all questioning that. I’m just saying that stores shouldn’t be held responsible for not satisfying every customer’s expectations. I know this is not the way it is, but it SHOULD be, IMO.
Here’s why: Expectations vary from one person to the next and are hard to define. Again, someone entering a PetSmart should expect that they might encounter debris from animals and even water on the floor.
In answer to your question, yes, if the customer slipped on water I would consider that the basis for a frivolous lawsuit as well. But I guess that depends on the extent of the suit - if the customer wants to be compensated for medical bills I’d have a little more tolerance for that. If it’s a pain-and-suffering situation, not so much. Does that sound harsh? Mybe it is, but I hate the idea that people can hold others liable for their own inability to exercise caution.
I’ve known of people who sue at the drop of a hat, and I’m sure you have, too. This clogs up the courts and it causes the retailer to suspend some its policies and/or raise prices for everyone else. Perhaps here PetSmart will be forced to discontinue its pet-friendly policy.
“Do you expect clean floors at the supermarket or do you expect them to have liquid, powders, and glass?”
I expect the floors to be clean. If they’re not, I probably won’t shop there again. But I also expect to have to watch where I’m going and to be aware of my surroundings. And if I don’t watch out for myself, I don’t expect to extort money from the store because they didn’t live up to the standard I set for them in my own imagination.
“I wouldn’t shop at a supermarket where I “expected” spills and debris.”
Agreed.
“Question: what stores do you visit that normally have poop on the floor to the point that you actually expect it as a normal condition?”
None. But it would be more likely that I would encounter this at a PetSmart, where I know dogs go, than at the grocery store that doesn’t typically host dogs. Perhaps the PetSmart customer’s expectations should have been more in line with the reality of the situation. Whose fault is it that they were not?
The only way, I would imagine, to keep the floors 100% clean 100% of the time would be to have employees monitoring every customer and every animal all the time. Is this reasonable? In a supermarket, employees clean up spills immediately; I’m guessing the same is true for the PetSmart. Maybe not - if it’s a consistently dirty store probably not many people shop there.
Regarding the “slip, trip, fall hazards,” isn’t this wide open for interpretation? I could easily trip over any of those in-aisle supermarket displays. It might be worth my time to do it and see how much I could sue the supermarket for. :)
“Wouldn’t it be more prudent for the victim to simply ask for recompense for his medical bills stemming from the fall?”
Not as long as Obama and his trial lawyer supporters encourage “victims” to play the law-suit lotto.
BTW. Did you have some sort of an attack of common sense? Don’t let the ambulance chasers here such talk!
Thanks!
Regardless of your opinion of how it should be, the fact is that if you invite someone onto your premises and something injures them, then you face liability.
Your homeowners insurance even has money in it for small ‘nuisance’ claims for guests who sprain and ankle or something similar and this just covers basic medical bills and preserves good will for all.
You have a duty to protect your guests.
When you do not live up to that duty and something within your control causes injury to your guest then you might be found negligent—duty owed, duty breached, injury with damages, and proximal cause.
Now whether you will be found negligent is up to the court and they are notoriously unpredictable.
The fact is that the standards are higher than you think they ought to be and that is a good thing although there are always those ready to game the system. I also worked in worker’s comp and could tell you some stories! But that is for another thread!!
“Regardless of your opinion of how it should be, the fact is that if you invite someone onto your premises and something injures them, then you face liability.”
I understand. Granted, most such law suits go unreported and I’m guessing that the majority have some merit (although I don’t know that that’s true); still, we remain an ambulance-chasing society in which people are far too eager to hold business owners responsible for their own disinclination to exercise caution. Sure, this is my opinion, and of course the courts are not on my side here. We will continue to see the - yes - frivilous suits and, as a result, trial lawyers will continue to pounce on ever mishap. (I’m not as anti-attorney as I sound here - just don’t care for the J. Edwards style of law...)
“The fact is that the standards are higher than you think they ought to be”
yep! :) I think if I create a hazard for my guests and they get injured it probably should be my fault. If they’re injured in my home through no fault of mine, I shouldn’t be held responsible for that. I know it’s not as simple as that, but, yes, I think it SHOULD be, and, yes, I know that my opinion is completely irrelevent...
“could tell you some stories! But that is for another thread!!”
We should start that thread, becuase I’d enjoy hearing those. Well, maybe not enjoy, because I’m imagining the worst...:)
Just curious your continued use of the word “scam”. No, not everything is a scam. However, there are those out there who will use any and every opportunity to “scam” a business or person out of something. Why else would you have people filing hundreds of false reports for Hurricane Katrina and the World Trade Center?
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.