Court Limits Slip-and-Fall Cases

Christina Cole

Contributor

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

A business cannot be sued in a slip-and-fall case unless the injured patron is able to prove that the store employees were aware or should have known about the condition, ruled the Arizona Court of Appeals.

The judges threw out a claim by David Contreras Sr., an employee of a liquor distributing company.

In 2005, Contreras sued after he said he slimed on a slimy blue substance while on delivery to Walgreens. He said the store managers knew or should have known about the poor conditions.

However, appellate Judge William Brammer, writing for the unanimous court, said Contreras needed proof to have his case heard in front of the jury. Brammer argues that the businesses have a duty to keep the premises "reasonably save for customers."

That rule, the judge said, looks to a business' choice of a particular mode of operation, rather than the incident itself. That means a patron is not required to prove that the business knew of the spill or other condition if the owner "could reasonably anticipate that hazardous conditions would regularly arise."

Brammer said regularly means "customary, usual or normal." In this case, store manager James McDougall testified that a couple of liquid spills occur within a week. Based on that, Contreras argued that it fits the definition of "regularly." That's not the case, Brammer wrote.

"It is insufficient, however, to demonstrate that spills of some kind regularly occur," the judge said. "The business must be able to reasonably anticipate that a condition hazardous to customers will regularly occur." Here, the judge said, Contreras did not prove that the spills reached the floor or that they were in areas accessible to customers.