Troupe was shopping at a Burlington Coat Factory store when she slipped and fell on a berry, causing injuries. She sued the store for negligence for failure to keep the floor clean of spills and objects that might cause patrons to fall. The appeals court held that Troupe:
A) did not show that there was notice of a dangerous condition before her fall so the store was not liable.
B) failed to show that the berry existed; without such evidence the store was not liable.
C) could collect compensatory damages for her injury as the store had a duty to make the premises safe, but she could not recover punitive damages as there was no evidence of willful misconduct by the store.
D) could collect compensatory damages for her injury as the store had a duty to make the premises safe; she could also recover punitive damages as there was evidence of numerous instances of unsafe conditions in the store.
E) none of the other choices are correct.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that Troupe did not show that there was notice of a dangerous condition before her fall, so the store was not liable. In other words, the court found that the store did not have knowledge of the hazardous condition (the berry) before Troupe fell, and therefore could not have taken any reasonable steps to fix the situation or warn customers about it. Without this knowledge, the store did not breach its duty of care to Troupe, and was not liable for her injuries.

Troupe Was Shopping at a Burlington Coat Factory Store When