O.K. I'm not going to wait. Believe it or not MS BAHN, you just pissed on one of the few things in this world that I feel deeply about, and yes, that is Wal-Mart.
I drove around with Sam Walton in the hills surrounding Bentonville, Arkansas back in the late 70s when he still drove that 1976 chevy pickup with dented fenders and couldn't understand why people were so hateful.
I was there the day Helen Walton dedicated the new "Helen Walton Daycare Center", a place she not only helped raise funds for but donated a hell of a lot of her own money towards simply because parents had no cost-effective alternative in Bentonville or the surrounding towns.
You see, THEY never took the easy way out but also never forgot who made them billionaires. So your use of Wal-Mart as an example is poorly timed.
But back to your supercillious statements.
basically If someone would go to walmart (hypethetically) and fall on some liquid that was spilt on the floor, and broke a bone or what have you ,you would refer them to someone else because you got the information but you didn't witness the fall.Get real,You would be able to sue and win.with neglect on the stores behalf
NEGLECT: A concept in law based in child and animal protection. Also found referenced in relation to elder abuse. The correct term for which you stated a situation is NEGLIGENCE.
NEGLIGENCE: A person is negligent when he/she fails to act like the standard Ordinary, Reasonable Person. Just how an "ordinary, reasonable person" is expected to act in a particular situation can be a gray area of the law. For example, an ordinary, reasonable person can travel down the highway at 60 miles per hour but if dense fog is present, the same ordinary, reasonable person may be expected to reduce his/her speed of travel to 40 miles per hour. The determination of whether a person has met his/her standard is often resolved by a jury after presentation of evidence and argument at trial.
In your stated situation a REASONABLE person would notify the store of the spill, at which time a REASONABLE storeowner would mop up the spill, place cones around the spill to notify patrons of the impending danger then proceed to clean the mess or take some other precautionary measure.
Another legal principle you might want to study on is the word MITIGATE. What did the customer do to mitigate the damage from such a slip and fall? And that is why an attorney would ask "Did the spill occur in your presence?" Because if it did, or if you had 'notice' of such a hazard, it is incumbant upon you the customer to act in a REASONABLE manner to MITIGATE the damage.
HOWEVER, if the spill had been there for an hour, with store employees milling around it, talking and horseplaying, then the store had not fulfilled their obligation under the law to MITIGATE the damage.
O.K. let's assume that we don't know how long the spill has been there. Let's assume you have your head up your ass and don't see the spill. Let's say, since you like pulling these scenarios out of your ass, that you're looking at store shelves and talking on your cell phone while sashaying down the aisle.
Then COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE is at play. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE - Also called comparative fault. A system that allows a party to recover some portion of the damages caused by another party's negligence even if the original person was also partially negligent and responsible for causing the injury. Not all states follow this system. And because of that, you would have to state in which of the 50 states this particular Wal-Mart is located.
That's enough for today's lesson. Next time you decide to make statements of fact, don't do it here unless you damn sure know what the hell you're talking about.
And just so you know, Sam and Helen had more than 20 attorney's on staff but when they shook your hand it was signed, sealed and delivered. Can you say the same?
