Brooke V. Winn-Dixie Store Case Study

788 Words4 Pages

SUMMARY JUDGMENT UPHELD WHEN PLAINTIFF OBSERVED A DANGEROUS CONDITION, BUT FAILED TO STEP AROUND AN EASILY AVOIDABLE OBSTACLE AND FELL.
Brooke v. Winn-Dixie Stores, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D752 (Fla. 1st DCA April 4, 2017):
Plaintiff went to Winn-Dixie to make a purchase and get empty boxes. During his visit he made four trips in and out of the store. During that time, a shipment of beer was being delivered. The beer was being stacked approximately five feet high on a pallet between the entrance and the exit doors. (Clark Fountain, 2017)
On the plaintiff’s third trip exiting the store, he saw the empty pallet, but still tripped and fell over it, suffering injuries as a result. He then sued Winn-Dixie for failing to warn of the dangerous condition …show more content…

Business owners receive shipments of products everyday which have to be stored somewhere before final placement, and when a customer sees the placement but trips and falls, the invitee has violated his own duty to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. Also, because the pallet was not a foreign transitory substance, the analysis is different. (Clark Fountain, 2017)
Issue(s) – Was the defendant negligent in taking care and maintaining the walkway in order to accommodate a reasonable and safe condition for the use that it is intended?
Rules - Tort Law, Negligence. A land owner has two distinct duties to business invitees: (1) the duty to warn of a latent dangerous condition and (2) the duty to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition. (Clark Fountain, 2017)
Analysis – It appears that the location of the pallets was clear and obvious. The pallets did not possess a risk that would be inherently dangerous to an individual who is using the walkway. This condition appeared to be common and was known to be innocuous in everyday life that it did not have the ability to impose liability on the land and business owner. The plaintiff breached his own duty to assure his safety by not maintaining his direction of walking which does not pose a liability to the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff has been negligent to care for his own

Open Document