 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Donnell v. Zupan Enterprises8/10/2001
sonable care to prevent her injury. See Pimentel, 100 Wn.2d at 49.
III. Reasonable Care
In the exercise of reasonable care, a store proprietor must inspect for dangerous conditions and provide such repair, safeguards, or warning as may be reasonably necessary to protect its customers under the circumstances. Iwai, 129 Wn.2d at 96. Although this standard of care applies regardless of the mode of operation, the type of precautions that are 'reasonable' depends on 'the nature and the circumstances surrounding the business conduct{},' including the mode of operation. Ciminski, 13 Wn. App. at 819.
The self-service mode of operation might require a proprietor to implement protections that are not necessary under other circumstances, such as installing special types of flooring or implementing housekeeping or inspection procedures that reduce the risk of harm and enable the proprietor to discover and remove hazardous conditions customers create. Ciminski, 13 Wn. App. at 820. The reasonableness of a proprietor's methods of protection is a question of fact. Ciminski, 13 Wn. App. at 820-21.
Although the record here does not show that anyone else has fallen in the check-out area, it does show that Zupan's was aware that grocery items sometimes fell on the check-out aisle floor, posing a potential hazard. The record also shows that despite a policy requiring all store personnel to remove any debris on the floor, few store employees could actually see into the check-out aisles to ensure they were safe and, despite a policy requiring hourly checks, the employees followed no set cleaning or inspection schedule. This evidence raises questions of material fact as to whether Zupan's exercised reasonable care to prevent injuries caused by items dropped by customers in the check-out area.
In summary, (1) the check-out aisle is a self-service area; (2) a jury could find that it was reasonably foreseeable that debris would fall into the aisle and that Zupan's procedures were inadequate in light of this known risk; and (3) Zupan concedes that the evidence of injury and proximate cause is sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. Thus, the trial court erred when it dismissed O'Donnell's claims. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Seinfeld, P.J.
We concur:
Bridgewater, J.
Quinn-Brintnall, J.
|