HOW DANGEROUS IS COSTCO'S TOILET?
In Smith v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Marlene Smith was injured when she slipped and fell in a Costco bathroom.
While landowners must keep their property in a "reasonably safe condition," Smith was required to show that Costco had "active or constructive notice" of the danger and an adequate opportunity to address the situation.
After the Bronx County Supreme Court denied Costco's request to dismiss the case, the Appellate Division, First Department, sided with the company since Smith was unable to show the existence of these governing elements. (The company demonstrated that it cleaned and monitored the bathroom "regularly" and that no problems had been detected before or after the incident.)
Smith's reliance on "mere speculation," and her inability to identify what caused her fall, cost her a victory.
No bargains there.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Smith v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2614
Comments
"Oh, I forgot to mention that the floor was wet at my deposition, we'll just add it, as well as some other "facts" to the error sheet of my deposition transcript."
Am I missing something or isn't doing that somewhere between sanctionable conduct and suborning perjury?
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 28, 2008 6:30 PM