Spills and Peels Are you negligent?

• Author: Spendlove, Gretta
• Position: Of Counsel

When first-year law students begin studying, they are often required to analyze two well-known cases involving, of all things, banana peels. In one of the cases, a store customer slips on an old banana peel and the owner of the store is held liable for the customer's injuries. In the other case, a customer slips on a new banana peel, but the owner of the store is not held liable. What is the difference between these two cases?

These cases were determined based on whether the store owner had been negligent or not when he failed to remove the banana peel. In the case of the old banana peel, he had already noticed the peel was on the floor, and so was negligent in not removing it. In the case of the new banana peel, it had fallen so recently that the courts could not find the store owner negligent in failing to notice and remove it.

Avoiding Negligence

Negligence is a basic concept of the American legal system. Hundreds of cases involving such diverse situations as slip-and-fall accidents, car crashes, employment disputes and performance by professionals, are decided on the basis of negligence and whether the defendant was careless in causing harm to another's person or property.

Generally, negligence occurs when a person has a duty to act in a certain way, fails to act in that way, and damage or injury results from that failure. The law imposes different duties and "standards of care" in different business situations. Usually, the standard is what a reasonable person would do in those circumstances. Businesses can protect themselves from liability by staying aware of dangerous situations, adopting policies that will prevent negligence and obtaining adequate insurance.

Injuries on Business Property

In 1993, a woman slipped on a kiwi in a Salt Lake City Albertsons store, and then a year later, slipped on a jalapeno in the same store. She sued, but the court denied her recovery. The reason for this is that business owners cannot be liable for injuries arising from unsafe conditions of a temporary nature unless two conditions are met. First, a plaintiff must show that the business owner knew, or should have known, of the hazardous condition. Second, a plaintiff must show that the business owner had enough time to remedy the unsafe condition had the owner exercised reasonable care. The court decided that the woman in this case had failed to show that the Albertsons store was so littered with vegetable and fruit debris that it posed a hazardous...