Trip and Fall in Grocery Store Nets $100,000 Verdict
27 Jul 2007
South Carolina: Aiken County Common Pleas, Aiken; Carlisle v. Bi-Lo, Inc.; Case No. 95-CP-02-373; Judge H. Dean Hall.
A $100,000 verdict was returned against a grocery store based upon the negligence of a store employee.
Facts of Accident: The Plaintiff walked into Defendant grocery store where an employee was vacuuming. The vacuum cord was stretched across the entrance. Plaintiff stepped over cord with one foot, but the employee moved the cord and it caught her other foot, causing her to fall.
Injuries Sustained: The Plaintiff was diagnosed with severe chondromalacia of the cartilage to the right knee, which required surgery. The injury also caused degenerative arthritis. Plaintiff was rated a 15-percent impairment to the right leg. She now uses a cane to walk, must cook and clean while sitting in a wheelchair, and she shops with a motorized shopping cart. She will take pain medication for the rest of her life.
Special Circumstances: Plaintiff cared for her invalid mother, but was unable to do so after the accident and had to put her in a nursing home. The verdict was reduced by 25-percent comparative negligence and reportedly settled for $70,000 after the verdict.
Most falls at grocery stores involve the presence on the floor of a foreign substance, such as, water or another liquid. The allegations against the grocery store in the typical case are that the store knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the presence of the foreign substance and failed to remove it or to provide warnings to shoppers.
In this South Carolina case, a store employee engaged in active misconduct that directly caused the shopper's fall.
Despite the difference in the allegations and proof of misconduct, the issue of comparative negligence of the shopper remained. In most states the negligence, if any, of the injured person is separately determined by the jury and compared with the negligence of the store in a ratio. For example, in this case it appears that the jury determined that the Plaintiff was also negligent and that her negligence contributed to the extent of 25% to the happening of the accident.
There are probably no businesses that intentionally distract the shopper more than the modern supermarket. From the moment a shopper enters a grocery store a thousand signs literally vie with one another to draw attention. In such an environment it is difficult to understand how any shopper could be held responsible for failing to watch the floor for cords, liquids, vegetable parts, or other foreign objects. No supermarket would be pleased to see its shoppers carefully monitoring the floor (instead of the shelves) while walking down the aisles.
