Finding Secondary Sources
First source: 44- APR HOULAW 56 DIVIDED TEXAS SUPREME COURT NARROWS THE SCOPE OF ‘UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS' IN PREMISES LIABILITY CASES (2007). One day Ms. Taylor decides to go her local Brookshire’s -grocery store to get herself a soft drink from the self- serve soft. As she went to go get her drink she slips and falls on a piece of ice. She then tries to sue store for her injuries claiming that the soft drink dispenser was an unreasonably dangerous condition. She was granted partial summary judgment and was awarded damages in the ensuing trial. The store then filed a petition, it went to the Texas Supreme Appeal Court reversed and rendered the decision based on the fact that it had to be the store that was an unreasonable dangerous conditions and not the soft drink dispenser. The courts also ruled that a condition cannot be unreasonably dangerous simply because it is not fool proof. I learned from this case that in order for the store to be liable for a person injury the store would have to know that there was a spill on the floor. I believe that this will help my case because all though the employee stated that my client was too busy to watch the floor, and it had been checked at the top of hour. It was his duty, his responsibility to go check the aisles because in that time frame another customer could have spilled on something on the aisle and did not let an employee know shows that the under managed aisle was a dangerous condition to the patrons. Second source: 26 A.L.R.4TH 481 § 4[a] Water—Negligence
According to this A.L.R. there have been numerous cases on slip and fall and while of the plaintiffs lost others have won. For example in the In Barakos v Sponduris (1958) 64 NM 125, 325 P2d 712, infra § 6[a], case a restaurant was sued by one of its patrons because he/she had allegedly slipped and fell either on some water or grease...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document