|
barelynangel -> RE: Man sues, claims he fell after stepping in feces (4/3/2010 6:54:59 AM)
|
Actually this case has merit as the comparativeness of fault isn't remotely 50/50. First of all, this stores allows pets in the store which means they are taking on the liability of those pets harming another customer. Secondly, the store has an obligation to remove anything that may harm a customer. The fact that this man fell on feces in the store, is not comparative fault against the customer. While they will I am sure affirm that there is a portion of comparative fault its not remotely close to a 50/50 concept. First of all, the store is set up where he would probably be looking at the shelves and not the floor as its usually assumed the lanes are for that purpose. Just as a homeowner can be responsible for injury to guests at their home and on their property who are welcomes, same goes for stores. And actually, i don't believe they even have signes posted about customers need to be aware. And this would also go against the store.
Now, this case is not worth the $1,000,000. Nor do i think he would get same before a jury. This will depend on what his medicals are and what can be proven as to future medical issues. It will settle out of court and i would presume not even close to the 1 mil.
However, since the store allows pets in, the store is actually responsible as well as the owners of same to assuring the safety of the other customers. When i go into a store i as a customer have a reasonable belief that the store has done away with any hazardous conditions or they have fully identified same to anyone looking.
This to me is an unfortunate situation of an owner's irresponsibility and disgusting allowance of allowing its pet to crap on the floor and not clean it up or notify the store that a clean up was necessary. Too bad they can't identify the owner because to me this is just utterly irresponsbile and rude performance by same.
angel
|
|
|
|
