A customer at a grocery store slipped and fell on a puddle of spilled milk in an aisle. The spill had been there for 45 minutes before the customer slipped, and store employees had not yet cleaned it up despite conducting regular inspections every hour. The customer sues the store for their injuries. Is the store liable for negligence?
Yes, because the store failed to clean up the spill within a reasonable time.
No, because the customer had a duty to watch where they were walking.
Yes, because the customer was a business invitee.
No, because the store conducted regular inspections.
The store is likely liable because property owners have a duty to maintain reasonably safe conditions for invitees (such as customers). When a dangerous condition, like a spill, exists for an unreasonably long time, and reasonable efforts to correct it are not made, liability may arise. The time the hazard has existed and whether the store exercised reasonable care determine liability. While regular inspections are helpful, failing to act promptly on hazards discovered during such inspections can lead to negligence. Other options are incorrect because liability depends on more than simply the presence of a dangerous condition or the customer’s awareness of it; it also involves consideration of reasonable steps taken by the property owner to address the hazard.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean for a store to have a duty to maintain safe conditions for invitees?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What factors determine whether a hazard has existed for an unreasonably long time?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How do regular inspections affect the store's liability for negligence?