Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P sued for injuries she sustained when she slipped on a puddle of water at the 'Outdoor Lawn and Garden Corral' of D's store. P alleged D was negligent in the maintenance, care, and inspection of the premises, and D asserted contributory negligence. D's employee documents assembled as a 'Store Manual' were admitted into evidence at the jury trial that followed. There was considerable confusion and testimony over whether that manual applied to the outdoor lawn and garden area. Janice Walker, a former D employee who was reporting for work when she witnessed P's fall, testified that she would sweep or 'squeegee' water in the corral on an 'as required' basis, usually after a rainfall or plant watering. Walker also testified that she was a member of the store's safety team and that the puddle where Wright fell was of the type Walker would normally sweep or squeegee. P wanted D's manual to establish the duty of care. D objected on the ground that 'you can set standards for yourself that exceed ordinary care and the fact that you've done that shouldn't be used as evidence tending to show the degree that you believe is ordinary. The court overruled the objection and P's tendered instruction became Final Instruction 17. D was found liable and assessed P's total damages at $600,000, reduced to $420,000 by 30% comparative fault attributed to P. P appealed contending that the second paragraph of Final Instruction 17 was an improper statement of law that incorrectly altered the standard of care from an objective one to a subjective one. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co