Tom v S.S. Kresge

850 Words4 Pages
[Tom v S.S. Kresge Co., Inc 633 P.2d 439( Ariz. App. 1981)] Negligence is what the Mae Tom can claim as the tort. However, I strongly believe that she can recover from her juries with the claims she currently has against Kresge’s. The store owner failed to protect the customer’s from injuries which it is required to keep the store in a safe condition for the customers. There would be no accident if the store floor was not wet from in the first place. The store owner breached its duty to keep the store in safe conditions. The cause of the injury was the wet floor which led to the incident. The damage in this case is body injury and loss of compensation. As the plaintiff Mae Tom has all the rights to sue the store owner for negligence. The store owner should keep the store in a safe condition at all times. The Kresge’s failed to practice the mode of operation rule. The business does not keep any record of past incidents which makes a stronger case against the store that it may have had similar incidents reported and failed to do anything about it. The owner may have verbally received many complaints from customer about its wet floor in the past and it consistently ignored the fact that it can be prevented by fixing the problem. This is very similar case to the SUZETTE GARCIA,v SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY.Garcia fell on a puddle of water in the aisle. She took her case to the court based on negligence claim. These similar cases are common and therefore through the store owner’s should pay more attention to the safety for their customers. The store has a duty to look ways of preventing slip and fall incidents. As a business owner “is not an insurer of the safety of a business invitee, but only owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to his invitees.” Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 20 Ariz. App. 255, 258, 511 P.2d 699, 702 (1973).Mae Tom has to provide

More about Tom v S.S. Kresge

Open Document