Trina's Negligence
Trina Rios could be found negligent by having a water spill on the floor. However, the factors of the time frame, that the spill was open and obvious, and that Trina did not know of the spill could remove her negligence. Additionally, Karen Logan was contributorily negligent here, absolving Trina of any negligence claim.
Negligence
To be negligent, the condition of defendant’s property must present an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property. Here, the puddle of water in the middle of the floor was not an unreasonable risk of harm because it was a thin puddle that was easily noticeable by anyone glancing around. However, the water was on a tile floor where there was customer traffic, making the area slippery when wet. There …show more content…
The owner set up the requirement that her employees would check the aisles every hour. Trina did attempt to exercise reasonable care. Subsequently, the length of time is considered when looking at the dangerous condition. This is to say, the length of time the condition had been there. Here, the spill happened between 10 am and 11:30am, when the cashier had checked the aisle at 10 to the time of the accident at 11:30. This indicates that the spill had not been there very long, if it was there at all. The cashier stated that the aisle had no leaks, water displays, or water guns anywhere near it, so Trina took ordinary care with her hour inspection instruction. Additionally, the water could not have been there long under the circumstances because there was no water around the area that would make the owner or cashier aware of the fact that water could be on the aisle. Instead, it would be very unlikely water would be on the floor on that aisle, so the length of time here was more reasonable. Had there been water displays, the cashier and owner should have checked the aisles more frequently. In Owens v. Coffee Corner the court found that the owner was liable for coffee that had “just spilled” because it was reasonable foreseeable that coffee-shop customers would spill coffee. However in a camera store where someone “just spilled” soda they were not liable because no refreshments were available and it was unlikely someone would spill. Similarly here, Trina owns a toy store that does not sell refreshments, and spills like this have never happened before. Thus, she is likely not negligent for the spill because the time frame here was not long under the
Negligence
To be negligent, the condition of defendant’s property must present an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property. Here, the puddle of water in the middle of the floor was not an unreasonable risk of harm because it was a thin puddle that was easily noticeable by anyone glancing around. However, the water was on a tile floor where there was customer traffic, making the area slippery when wet. There …show more content…
The owner set up the requirement that her employees would check the aisles every hour. Trina did attempt to exercise reasonable care. Subsequently, the length of time is considered when looking at the dangerous condition. This is to say, the length of time the condition had been there. Here, the spill happened between 10 am and 11:30am, when the cashier had checked the aisle at 10 to the time of the accident at 11:30. This indicates that the spill had not been there very long, if it was there at all. The cashier stated that the aisle had no leaks, water displays, or water guns anywhere near it, so Trina took ordinary care with her hour inspection instruction. Additionally, the water could not have been there long under the circumstances because there was no water around the area that would make the owner or cashier aware of the fact that water could be on the aisle. Instead, it would be very unlikely water would be on the floor on that aisle, so the length of time here was more reasonable. Had there been water displays, the cashier and owner should have checked the aisles more frequently. In Owens v. Coffee Corner the court found that the owner was liable for coffee that had “just spilled” because it was reasonable foreseeable that coffee-shop customers would spill coffee. However in a camera store where someone “just spilled” soda they were not liable because no refreshments were available and it was unlikely someone would spill. Similarly here, Trina owns a toy store that does not sell refreshments, and spills like this have never happened before. Thus, she is likely not negligent for the spill because the time frame here was not long under the