Slip-and-Fall at the 24-Hour Grocery
At 8:40 p.m. on a Saturday, Dana enters a 24-hour grocery store to buy milk. Near the frozen-food aisle she slips on a puddle of melted ice cream and fractures her wrist. The store's written policy requires floor checks every 30 minutes, and the log for that aisle shows a check at 8:15 p.m. and none afterward. A stock clerk says the puddle came from a pint a child dropped roughly ten minutes before the fall; the clerk saw the child running in the aisle but did not see the spill itself. Dana was texting and did not look at the floor. Her medical bills are $18,400, and she missed six weeks of work at $900 per week. The store argues that it had no notice of the spill and that Dana's own inattention bars or reduces recovery.
1. The store says it had no notice of the puddle. Does that defeat Dana's negligence claim?
Read the worked answer
No, though notice is the central battleground.
Dana is a business invitee. The store owes reasonable care to inspect and to remedy hazards it knows or should know about. It is not an insurer of customer safety, and the traditional rule requires actual or constructive notice.
Three routes to constructive notice:
- The inspection policy. The store set a 30-minute cycle; the log shows a 25-minute gap before an 8:40 p.m. fall. Breach of its own rule is not negligence per se, but it is strong evidence that a reasonable inspection would have caught the spill.
- The clerk's testimony. He saw a child running in the aisle and did nothing. Knowledge of a foreseeable hazard-creating condition can substitute for knowledge of the puddle itself.
- Mode of operation. In self-service settings where spills are a recurring, foreseeable byproduct, some courts allow the inference that the hazard existed long enough that reasonable care would have discovered it.
On these facts a jury could reasonably find notice and breach.
2. How does Dana's texting affect recovery, and what is the arithmetic?
Read the worked answer
It depends entirely on the jurisdiction's negligence regime, so state the assumption.
- Pure comparative negligence: fault is apportioned and Dana recovers her share regardless of her percentage.
- Modified (51% bar): she recovers unless her fault exceeds 50%.
- Contributory negligence: any negligence on her part bars recovery completely.
Assume a modified comparative state and a jury allocation of 25% to Dana, 75% to the store.
Total damages:
- Medical: $18,400
- Lost wages: 6 × $900 = $5,400
- Total economic loss: $23,800
Reduced award:
- $23,800 × 0.75 = $17,850
Texting while walking is a breach of her own duty of self-protection. In a contributory-negligence state, the same facts yield $0, which is why identifying the jurisdiction's rule is the first move, not an afterthought.
3. What must Dana prove on causation and what damages are potentially available?
Read the worked answer
Actual cause is but-for: absent the puddle, no fall. Proximate cause asks whether the harm is within the scope of the risk created by the store's negligence. A slippery floor causing a fracture is squarely foreseeable.
The child's dropping the pint is not a superseding cause. Intervening negligent or careless conduct supersedes only if it is unforeseeable; a child with food in a grocery aisle is highly foreseeable, and the store's own failure to clean is the operative breach.
Recoverable categories:
- Economic: $18,400 medical, $5,400 lost wages, plus future medical or diminished earning capacity if proven.
- Non-economic: pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment, often capped by statute.
- Punitive: not available absent malice or reckless indifference; a 25-minute inspection gap alone is ordinary negligence.
If the store can show the puddle was visible had Dana looked up, the comparative percentage rises. If the store knew the child was unsupervised and ignored it, punitive exposure becomes arguable.