Think this Lawsuit will gain traction, or slip?

Virginia man sues PetSmart, claims he slipped after stepping in feces at the store:

Quote:

---

A Virginia man is suing PetSmart for $1 million after he slipped in a pile of you-know-what at a Newport News store location during a trip to purchase dog food and bird seed in early 2009.

The man, Robert Holloway, says he badly injured his back, requiring surgery, and lost four false teeth in the incident. (His attorney, Michael Goodove, acknowledged in an interview with the Virginian-Pilot that Holloway had an existing back problem at the time of the accident but says that his client's condition worsened as a result of the slip.)

The suit alleges that PetSmart staff "negligently allowed animals to enter the premises and deposit feces in such a manner as to create a dangerous and hazardous condition," according to documents acquired by the Virginian-Pilot. Goodove says Holloway didn't see the feces because they blended in with the color of the store's floor.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that the suit was initially filed in Norfolk Circuit Court, but PetSmart succeeded in getting it moved to U.S. District Court, where a similar suit against the company was dismissed in 2008.

In court documents, PetSmart denied the allegation of negligence, according to the Associated Press.

-- Lindsay Barnett

---

I think it will go nowhere. PetSmart is a store known to everyone, that your pets are welcome. What is this man thinking? Doesn't he know that animals crap where ever they feel like it?

Quote:

---

or if they did know, they should have cleaned it up before Holloway stepped in it, the suit says.

---

What if it happened just 10 seconds before he slipped?

My God... The man had a dog himself.

He should win. Does PetSmart have signs with slippery shit warnings? Was the store notified there was shit on aisle 4? Did the owner of the dog tell the manager his/her dog shitted on the floor? The guy who was hurt didnot know there was shit on the retail shop floor. I've been to PetSmart a few times and the last thing I would be looking for is shit on the floor. I hope he wins the million.

so if there's water spilled on the floor of a grocery store and somebody slips and falls and is badly hurt, no liability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

so if there's water spilled on the floor of a grocery store and somebody slips and falls and is badly hurt, no liability?

---

well since they sell water...

Hm... I don't know about this. Part of me says the guy should have been paying attention. I mean, how much liability SHOULD a store assume? It's just odd to me that once a customer enters the doors of an establishment, barring being hit by another actual customer, they seemingly could complain of any type of malady experienced in the store.

He'll get a hundred grand, his lawyer will get two hundred grand, and Petsmart will raise the price of dog food by a few cents.

I just hope there's a special place in Hell for 'slip and fall' lawyers, and their clients.

This thread needed a poll, just for the fun of it. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I just hope there's a special place in Hell for 'slip and fall' lawyers, and their clients.

---

So a little old lady with failing sight who's badly hurt because a merchant, who should be aware of a slippery liquid on the floor but does nothing about it, failed to clean the spill, she should really be on her own to pay the medical bills associated with healing her broken hip? At least now we can be sure that she'll have medical insurance, right?

Are there frivolous lawsuits arising from claimed slip-and-fall accidents in commercial establishments? Sure.

But does that mean that no slip-and-fall accidents can produce legitimate lawsuits? Of course not.

From what I remember, if the store had actual or constructive notice and still ignored it, then he'll have a viable claim. That turns on all the factual circumstances. He might have a shot if it was just sitting there for over half an hour, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Are there frivolous lawsuits arising from claimed slip-and-fall accidents in commercial establishments? Sure.

But does that mean that no slip-and-fall accidents can produce legitimate lawsuits? Of course not.

---

Exactly. People like to crow over frivolous lawsuits that reap huge windfalls, but those awards are rare and often reduced on appeal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

From what I remember, if the store had actual or constructive notice and still ignored it, then he'll have a viable claim. That turns on all the factual circumstances. He might have a shot if it was just sitting there for over half an hour, I guess.

---

That's a pretty accurate statement of the duty and breach elements of a premises liability claim brought by a business invitee. Whether he can prove that or not is what will determine if the case goes forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

That's a pretty accurate statement of the duty and breach elements of a premises liability claim brought by a business invitee. Whether he can prove that or not is what will determine if the case goes forward.

---

Do we have another would-be lawyer or current lawyer in the house? :lol

How about this one?

Quote:

---

Texas man threatened deadly force to stop abortion

DALLAS – A Texas man faces charges after he filed documents in federal court threatening to use deadly force to stop an abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court didn't immediately act to outlaw the practice, federal officials said Monday.

Erlyndon Joseph "Joey" Lo, 27, of Plano, filed documents there Friday saying his religious beliefs entitled him to use deadly force to prevent an abortion. He listed the name of a clinic, its address and the time he was going to show up — noon that day.

"I plan on saving at least one human life in Dallas, Texas," Lo wrote.

FBI spokesman Mark White said he was unsure if Lo went at that time, but said agents worked with Dallas police "to make sure there wasn't going to be an issue at the clinic." Lo was arrested Saturday.

"We take threats to women's clinics very seriously," White said. "And this threat was very specific in its nature."

Lo is charged with one count of using interstate commerce to communicate a threat to injure and one count of threatening force to intimidate and interfere with clients and employees of a reproductive health service in order to intimidate that facility's clients and employees from obtaining and providing reproductive health services.

Lo made an initial appearance Monday in Plano and his detention hearing was postponed until April 15. He does not have a listed phone number and is acting as his own attorney.

Calls to the clinic, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, went to an answering service Monday evening. A Dallas police spokesman declined to comment.

Clinic employees told authorities a man matching Lo's description showed up weeks earlier with a receipt, asking if his wife had an abortion, according to federal officials. They told him they could not disclose any information or even confirm if an individual was a patient.

It is unclear if Lo is married. Authorities said Monday he lives with his parents.

In his complaint against the Supreme Court, Lo said he was filing a class-action lawsuit seeking more than $999 trillion in damages. He asked the court to pay him $1,000 an hour in attorney fees.

Lo equated abortion to murder, explaining his religious convictions required him to kill in order to prevent women from terminating pregnancies.

"My religious beliefs include the beliefs that an individual is alive at the moment of conception, abortion is murder and is the worst murder of all murders possible because these babies are completely defenseless, and I am entitled under my religious beliefs to use deadly force if necessary to save the innocent life of another," Lo wrote.

In Kansas on Thursday, anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder used his sentencing hearing for the killing of one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers to espouse his belief that abortion is murder. But there was no indication in Lo's filings that he was influenced by Roeder, who was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years for the shooting of Dr. George Tiller.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So a little old lady with failing sight who's badly hurt because a merchant, who should be aware of a slippery liquid on the floor but does nothing about it, failed to clean the spill, she should really be on her own to pay the medical bills associated with healing her broken hip? At least now we can be sure that she'll have medical insurance, right?

---

If she has such a condition, she shouldn't be out alone.

What are dogs roaming retail shops anyways? Thats fucked up. Keep them at home. They have no reason to go up and down the aisles shitting where ever they want. The owner of the dog should be the one who pays for the guy who hurt himself falling on their dogs shit that they were too lazy to pick up..

If I only had a million bucks for every time I slipped and fell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

If I only had a million bucks for every time I slipped and fell.

---

Are you saying you would not sue if you slipped on dog shit in in retail shop and seriously hurt yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

What are dogs roaming retail shops anyways? Thats fucked up. Keep them at home. They have no reason to go up and down the aisles shitting where ever they want. The owner of the dog should be the one who pays for the guy who hurt himself falling on their dogs shit that they were too lazy to pick up..

---

Are you serious, or did you forget to use blue?

If so, you have never been inside a one of these stores. They openly welcome people bringing their pets in. It's a known fact. They also do grooming services.

I thought everyone knew this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Are you saying you would not sue if you slipped on dog shit in in retail shop and seriously hurt yourself?

---

If were really serious, I might try to get my med bills paid and any lost wages, but I'm probably not pursuing 7 figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

So a little old lady with failing sight who's badly hurt because a merchant, who should be aware of a slippery liquid on the floor but does nothing about it, failed to clean the spill, she should really be on her own to pay the medical bills associated with healing her broken hip? At least now we can be sure that she'll have medical insurance, right?

---

This may sound harsh/evil, but I think the woman is probably partially responsible. How is it possible to know the store owner KNEW about the spill?

If a store manager, for instance, hires a crew to clean/patrol the aisles, has he done enough due diligence to protect himself?

I mean, if I'm blind and try to drive a car, then crash, I can't really sue the automakers now can I? Well, given the hot coffee incident with McDonald's a few years back, I probably could, but you know what I mean. :)

Also, that post by TheProfessor was priceless. As if someone claiming "religious reasons" allows them to do whatever they want. What an f'ing loon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

This may sound harsh/evil, but I think the woman is probably partially responsible. How is it possible to know the store owner KNEW about the spill?

If a store manager, for instance, hires a crew to clean/patrol the aisles, has he done enough due diligence to protect himself?

I mean, if I'm blind and try to drive a car, then crash, I can't really sue the automakers now can I? Well, given the hot coffee incident with McDonald's a few years back, I probably could, but you know what I mean. :)

---

Well, American premises liability law imposes a duty upon anyone who opens a store to the public to ensure that the premises are safe for customers and to inspect the premises to ensure that no hazardous conditions exist.

You're right, the store owner's liability depends on its knowledge (actual or constructive) that a hazardous condition exists; but that imposes a duty on the store owner to reasonably inspect for such conditions. By imputing constructive notice to the store owner, the law says that the store owner can't keep itself willfully ignorant of potentially hazardous conditions in the store -- it is required to inspect. But to make a case, the Plaintiff is obligated to demonstrate that the condition is one that the owner should have known about.

And, of course, the law in virtually every jurisdiction allows a jury to consider whether the patron was negligent in her conduct as well. If you think that a woman with poor eyesight is herself negligent if she slips and falls while walking through a store, the cure for that isn't in doing away with slip and fall lawsuits; it's in believing that rational juries will apportion responsibility in the manner suggested by the evidence.

But none of that suggests that slip and fall lawsuits are inherently frivolous. The truth of the matter is that people get hurt in our society -- and sometimes they get hurt very seriously. Sometimes when those people get hurt, they are hurt because others acted negligently towards them (sometimes, they are hurt because others acted intentionally, maliciously, or grossly negligently, too). It's also true that sometimes people are hurt because they act stupidly. But our legal system -- through trials, alternative dispute resolution methods (like arbitration), and appeals -- sets up a coherent set of legal rules that determine: (a) how a person should act relative to another; (b) whether particular conduct runs afoul of those duties; and (c) whether such breaches of those duties permit the injured party to seek compensation from the breaching party.

To read media reports, you'd easily believe that the system never works and that almost all lawsuits are frivolous. But to sit in a courtroom behind a young widow who is now raising 2 boys on her own because the driver of a 70,000 pound tractor trailer was going 70 in a 55 on a poorly-marked highway and t-boned a dangerously-modified machine that her husband was riding upon while trying to make a living for his family, it stuns me to think that anyone would think that there's no place in our judicial system for her.

FWDT, thanks for the info. I'm fine with juries determining the culpability of the store owner; I don't think this is an issue in which black or white laws will necessarily serve the public interest the best, as minute differences in detail will appear in each case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

FWDT, thanks for the info. I'm fine with juries determining the culpability of the store owner; I don't think this is an issue in which black or white laws will necessarily serve the public interest the best, as minute differences in detail will appear in each case.

---

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

---

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

And that's precisely why we have juries -- not every case is black and white, either factually or legally. And the concern that juries will run roughshod over common sense or even the law is precisely why we have appellate courts to review the work of juries.

---

On a separate note, it's interesting to hear your point of view on the whole jury/appeals process and compare that with the opinions of a family friend who works for a big company. The company he works for is getting sued or threatened to be sued weekly. He's not a lawyer but is high enough on the corporate food chain that dealing with lawsuits is something he needs to concern himself with. He and I were having a conversation about frivolous lawsuits once and he swears to me that the absolute last thing in the world they want is to end up before a jury. No real point here, just an observation as to the different perception of juries coming from different perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

---

Oh I think there's some truth to that, but I also don't think that anyone settles a frivolous lawsuit for anything more than pennies on the dollar. I'd guess, however, that a nearly equal number of defendants facing such suits also avoid the trial court by obtaining pre-trial relief from courts (summary judgments, dismissals, etc.).

To the extent that the capitalistic instinct isn't a cure to frivolous lawsuits -- or at least a curb -- and the use of pre-trial means to avoid trial isn't an ultimate cost savings, I'd argue that there are underutilized procedural mechanisms in place to permit parties to not only get out of frivolous suits but also to obtain compensation from the parties who file frivolous suits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

On a separate note, it's interesting to hear your point of view on the whole jury/appeals process and compare that with the opinions of a family friend who works for a big company. The company he works for is getting sued or threatened to be sued weekly. He's not a lawyer but is high enough on the corporate food chain that dealing with lawsuits is something he needs to concern himself with. He and I were having a conversation about frivolous lawsuits once and he swears to me that the absolute last thing in the world they want is to end up before a jury. No real point here, just an observation as to the different perception of juries coming from different perspectives.

---

There are certainly repeat players in the litigation process and those repeat players are usually either absolutist in their refusal to settle cases or absolutist in their refusal to go to trial. There are certainly lawyers who file cases with absolutely no desire to take those cases in front of juries. The latter is certainly a problem -- but, again, the existence of that problem doesn't: (a) undermine the effectiveness of our justice system; or (b) suggest that the best way to eradicate those abuses is to outlaw personal injury actions altogether.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Please correct my perception if it's inaccurate, but aren't most of these lawsuits made just in hopes of getting a settlement? I respect your trust of the jury/appeals process, but it seems to me like the majority of the damage done by frivolous suits occurs before things ever get into a courtroom.

---

I think that's true to some extent. There is a common perception that the people we have on juries are too dumb to get out of it, and mostly among those who would love to win a jackpot themselves. I think in this case though, it will never be settled, and if it makes it to trial will have no award.

I think the cases that get settles are mostly those that are risky because of the jury, and then settle pennies on the dollar, or less than what a defense would cost even if they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I thought everyone knew this...

---

Nope. I've been in there a couple of times, thought about buying a fish but never did. I did see the groom service but no dogs walking around the store. I buy dog food at the grocery store and have no reason to be in PetSmart. Now that I know dogs can take shits in the store I won't be going back. I hope the guy wins the suit.