In Corbin v. Safeway Stores the plaintiff “sued Safeway Stores for damages resulting from injuries suffered when he slipped on a grape and fell” in the produce department of a supermarket owned by Safeway.
The evidence established that the plaintiff slipped “directly in front of the self-service grape bin” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores).
The plaintiff testified that “he saw no mat or other flooring covering of any kind in the area where he fell” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores).
On the other hand, Safeway’s employees testified that company policy “required mats in front of its grape bins” because Safeway recognized that customers frequently dropped grapes on the floor and “store employees were unable to adequately supervise the floor constantly to ensure that it remained free of grapes” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores).
After all the evidence was provided in the court of trial, the court “granted Safeway’s motion for direct verdict” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores). This was subsequently affirmed by the court of appeal and the plaintiff appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.
Issue
The case presents the concern whether a proximate cause may be used as a basis for recovering damages by demonstrating failure by a facility owner to protect customers from risks that arise during normal visitation and usage of business premises.
The law issue at hand relates to the consideration that the facility owner or occupier had “constructive knowledge of the conditions on the premises that pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the customers” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores). Therefore, the defendant is considered to possess a duty of care and should undertake actions that are necessary and reasonable in reducing or eliminating the unreasonable risk.
Even when the inherent defects are not obvious, the law considers them based on whether they can be revealed through a reasonably careful inspection.
The Rule
Since a simple negligence action is presumed when an invitee sues a store’s owner for negligence, “the standard of conduct required of a premises occupier towards his invitees is the ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all the pertinent circumstances” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores).
Duty of Care
In this case, there is an established duty of care since the plaintiff was an invitee to the defendants stores.
Breach of the Duty
The injuries suffered by the plaintiff could have been prevented if the defendant had taken extra care to protect his invitees from the risk of injury by ensuring that there were sufficient warnings about the condition of the premises.
Actual Cause
The defendants behavior of allowing the design of the grape bin to be slanted in a manner likely to allow grapes to fall down on the floor and therefore causing the plaintiff to fall and injure himself can be said to have directly caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
Proximate Cause
The defendant’s behavior of not providing sufficient warnings to his invitees could have been foreseen as contributing to the risk of injury.
Damages/Injuries
The injuries suffered by the plaintiff were as a result of the fall which was directly related to the condition of the defendant’s premises and his behavior of not doing enough to warn his invitees.
Defenses by Defendant
The defendant argued that at the time of his fall there was nothing to warn him about the condition of the premises and the nature of the floor specifically.
Analysis
Duty of Care
The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care since when the defendant opened a self-service store, he invited customers to patronize the premises. It is a fact that the plaintive was an invitee of Safeway Stores.
In the argument presented by Safeway purporting that the lack of mats on the floor at the time of the plaintiffs fall was attributed to a company maintenance mistake, it can be argued that Safeway owed a duty of care to all invitees and should have exercised reasonable conduct to minimize the risk. This should have included using more than mats, and in this case, warnings would have sufficed.
Breach
When the defendant failed to correct the premises by improving the design of the grape display bin to prevent the falling down of grapes during the normal operation of a self-service store, he breached his duty of care to his invitees.
Actual/Factual Cause
The design and construction of the premises allowed grapes to fall from the display unit to the floor. The grapes on the floor caused the plaintiff to slip and fall injuring himself in the process, therefore the condition of the premises can be said to have been the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Proximate Cause
It can be argued that it was reasonably foreseeable that the defect in the premises allowing grapes to fall on the flow, and remain on the floor without being collected for some time, eventually led to the plaintiff slipping and injuring himself while serving as an invitee.
Damages
As a result of slipping on the grapes on the floor of the store, the plaintiff fell and injured his “collateral ligaments and the kneecap of his right knee.” (Corbin v. Safeway Stores, 1).
Defenses
The defendant argues that it was company policy to maintain walk-off mats on the portion of the floor that was likely to be slippery due to grapes falling on it. However, during the time the plaintiff slipped and fell, there were no floor mats, and the defendant argued that it was as a result of a mistake made by maintenance.
It can further be argued that the existence of prior knowledge that the premises presented risks for causing harm to customers, as provided by the employees of Safeway, through normal usage of the stores, there was no evidence provided by Safeway that there were efforts to minimize or alleviate the risks by undertaking measures to protect customers.
Conclusion
The evidence provided by the existence of grapes on the floor for a period that could not be immediately determined, is enough to demonstrate that Safeway did not undertake to collect things that were falling on the floor and likely to cause harm to invitees.
It can therefore be concluded that Safeway should be sued for damages suffered by the plaintiff when he was injured while using the services of a self-service store belonging to Safeway.
Works Cited
Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc. 648 S.W2d 292 Supreme Court of Texas. 1983.
