Is Sack and Shop, a grocery store, liable for injuries sustained by Harris, a store patron who

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Is Sack and Shop, a grocery store, liable for injuries sustained by Harris, a store patron who slipped on a banana peel that had been left on the grocery store floor for two days after the store employee and manager had been told it was there?

BRIEF ANSWER

Probably yes. Sack and Shop, a grocery store, likely breached its duty of care to a store patron, Rebecca Harris, who was injured when she slipped on a banana peel that the grocery store had allowed to remain on the grocery store floor for two days after both the store employee and manager knew about the peel.

FACTS

Rebecca Harris is suing our client, Sack and Shop Grocery Store, for negligence.

Harris went to the store to purchase groceries on July 8, 2020. While she was in the produce section, she slipped on a banana peel that a grocery store employee dropped on the floor. The employee had dropped the peel on the floor two days earlier. The employee had failed to clean it up, even after a patron, who saw him drop it, asked him to clean it up. The patron also told the store manager about the banana peel, and the manager asked an employee to clean it up. The employee still failed to clean up the peel, and the manager failed to ensure that the employee removed the peel.

Harris sustained a broken arm and head injuries as a result of the slip and fall.

DISCUSSION

The issue presented in this case is whether Sack and Shop Grocery Store was negligent when Rebecca Harris slipped in the store's produce section. A defendant is negligent if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, and the defendant's breach of that duty was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass'n, 745 N.E.2d 1166 (Ill. 2000). A grocer owes a duty of reasonable care to its patrons, and the grocer will be found negligent if a store employee or manager breached the store's 521 duty of reasonable care to its patrons, and as a result of that breach, the patron was injured. Ward v. K Mart Corp., 554 N.E.2d. 223 (Ill. 1990); Thompson v. Economy Super Marts, Inc., 581 N.E.2d 885 (Ill. App. 1st). A store owner may be liable when a patron, who is a business invitee, is injured by slipping on a foreign substance, if a store owner knew of the presence of the foreign substance or should have discovered it. Olinger v. Great Atl.& Pac. Tea Co., 173 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. 1961). In our case, Sack and Shop owed a duty of reasonable care to Harris because she was a store patron a business invite. Based on that duty of reasonable care, Sack and Shop must keep its store floor free of foreign substances that it knew about or should have discovered. In this case, Sack and Shop knew about the foreign substance the banana peel. However, Sack and Shop failed to remove the banana peel that the store employee dropped. The store failed to clean it up for two days, even after both the employee and the store manager had been told to clean up the peel from the floor. Therefore, Sack and Shop is likely to be found liable for the injuries Harris sustained.

The first element to consider is whether Sack and Shop owed a duty of reasonable care to Harris. A business owes a duty to its invitees or patrons to exercise reasonable care to maintain its premises in a "reasonably safe condition for use by the invitees." Ward, 554 N.E.2d at 226. Harris was a customer in the store. Sack and Shop, a grocery store, is a business. Therefore, Sack and Shop owed Harris a duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises.

The next question to consider is whether Sack and Shop breached its duty of reasonable care to Harris. A store will be found to have breached its duty of reasonable care to a patron if a store employee fails to properly and regularly clean the floor of the store, Olinger v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 173 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. 1961), or if the business had knowledge of the dangerous condition. Id. Also, if a business created the hazard, the business can be found to have breached its duty of reasonable care to a patron. Pabst v. Hillman's, 13 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. 1st 1938). In Pabst, the grocery store had overfilled a display of green beans, and the green beans spilled onto the floor. A patron slipped on one of the green beans. The court found that it could infer that the grocer had created the dangerous situation because the beans were on the floor next to the overfilled basket. Id. In our case, Sack and Shop's employee had two days to clean the floor before Harris fell. That could be considered a failure of the store's duty of reasonable care to properly maintain the premises and to regularly clean the store floor. Also, as in the Pabst case, Sack and Shop through its agent an employee had created the dangerous situation because the employee dropped the banana peel on the floor. In addition, a customer had placed the store employee and the manager on notice of the banana peel, and neither one cleaned up the banana peel. Therefore, Sack and Shop breached its duty of reasonable care to Harris.

The plaintiff, however, still must establish proximate cause that is, that the injury resulted as a natural consequence of Sack and Shop's breach of its duty of reasonable care. In Pabst, a store owner's failure to clear green beans from a store floor, resulting in injury to a patron who slipped on the floor, was found to be the proximate cause of the patron's injuries. Id. at 80. In this case, Sack and Shop's failure to clean the peel from the floor was a breach of its duty of care to Harris. This breach resulted in injury to Harris when she slipped on the neglected banana peel. Sack and Shop's breach of its duty will be found to be the proximate cause of Harris's injuries.

The final element that must be established for Sack and Shop to be liable to Harris for negligence is that the plaintiff, Harris, suffered injuries. In this case, Harris sustained a broken arm and head injuries as a result of the slip and fall on the banana peel. Therefore, Harris will be able to show that she was injured.

CONCLUSION

Sack and Shop owed Harris a duty of reasonable care. The store is likely to be found to have breached that duty of reasonable care because an employee and the store manager failed to remove a banana peel a foreign substance from the grocery store floor during the preceding two days. The injuries Harris sustained were directly caused by a slip on the banana peel. Therefore, Sack and Shop is likely to be found liable to Harris for negligence.

How do you write an outline of authorities for the scenario and an outline based on this memo. (This is the reverse of the process you would normally use.)