Slip and Fall

Slip & Fall

Lee Byrd

I believe the main defense that the grocery store will use is the defense of assumption of the risk. It states that a plaintiff voluntarily assumes a known risk of harm. So therefore Ann knew that it was raining. She had to assume that the rubber mat had to be wet and needed to be more careful. Especially since 6 feet before the rubber mat there is a clear as day sign that says “wet floor”. So Ann had to know that she needed to be careful whether it was periodically mopped or not she should have known better.

They will also use the due care as a defense. People are required to exercise due care and caution for the safety of others when the risk of injury is present. The grocery store is not negligent because they put up a sign in front of the door to let people know about the rainwater. The courts will try and see if the accident could have been avoidable, in this case it was an avoidable accident. In this such case Ann should have used common sense to see that it is raining and that a rubber mat may be slippery and to be a little more careful.

The defense can also use the reasonable person test. This is the standard of a reasonable prudent person using ordinary care and skill. This standard is applied by asking the question, “What would the reasonable person do under these circumstances?” The reasonable person test will imply that Ann has a minimum level of knowledge. So they will presume that Ann knew that when you have rain it could be slick and you need to watch your step to prevent falling and injuring yourself. If everyone is aware with the wet floor sign, then it is probably not unreasonable behavior. Bottom line Ann should have known better. Another thing that could affect this is the age of Ann which is not known but, if it was that could have an effect on this debate as well.

There are also degrees of negligence which the defenses would also use. Of these they will use ordinary negligence which is the...