Dog v Cas Cosmetics , Inc.

Question

Chicken Cas started a small cosmetics company in Minnesota and incorporated it as Cas Cosmetics in 1970. Chicken led the company for 40 years, as it grew and expanded beyond her original vision. In 2012, she turned day-to-day operations of Cas Cosmetics over to her daughter, Car, who runs the company with her partner, Kit Moo. The rebranded company, Cas Cosmetics and Moo, Inc. (also called CCM) operates as a wholesale distributor of professional beauty, hair, and salon products, with distribution centers located throughout the United States.
Jo Dog is a purchasing agent for MegaSalon, which operates in Franklin, Mythigan. When the company’s primary purchasing agent was hospitalized for COVID, MegaSalon sent Jo GDog to the Cas Cosmetics and Moo center in Franklin. Jo had never been to Franklin CCM center before and had difficulty finding it in the Franklin Business Park. After exiting her car and while approaching the entrance to CCM on a very overcast day, Jo tripped over a concrete “wheel stop” in the parking lot and fell, suffering a broken arm and a dislocated elbow. The 6-foot-long wheel stop was not clearly visible as it had not been painted a contrasting color to distinguish it from the surrounding pavement.

Jo brought a personal injury action against Cas Cosmetics and Moo alleging that the defendant was negligent in not marking the wheel stop more clearly, either with contrasting paint, vivid stripes, or a sign. During discovery, a CCM employee who works at the Franklin center admitted to the plaintiff’s husband that she had tripped over the wheel stop in the past and that had notified her employer that the unpainted wheel stops posed a danger to workers and customers.

DIRECTIONS: Using the FIRAC model, evaluate Jo’s premises liability claim against Cas Cosmetic and Moore. In your paper, make sure that you respond to the following questions:

• Is Jo an invitee or a license?
• What duty, if any, does the Chicken Cas Cosmetic and Moo facility owe her?
• Is a “wheel stop” an open and obvious danger?

Answer 1

To evaluate Jo Dog's premises liability claim against Cas Cosmetics and Moo, Inc. (CCM) using the FIRAC (Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) model, we will systematically address the relevant legal standards and apply them to the situation at hand.

FIRAC Evaluation

Facts

• Jo Dog, a purchasing agent for MegaSalon, visited the CCM distribution center in Franklin, Mythigan, while her employer's primary purchasing agent was hospitalized.
• During her visit, Jo tripped over a concrete "wheel stop" in the parking lot, leading to a broken arm and dislocated elbow.
• The wheel stop was not painted a contrasting color, making it difficult to see against the surrounding pavement.
• A CCM employee had previously tripped over the same wheel stop and reported the potential danger associated with unmarked wheel stops to her employer.

Issue

1. Is Jo Dog classified as an invitee or a licensee?
2. What duty of care does CCM owe to Jo Dog?
3. Is the "wheel stop" an open and obvious danger?

Rule

• Invitee vs. Licensee: An invitee is someone who enters a property for a purpose beneficial to the property owner, while a licensee enters for their own purposes with permission. Property owners owe a higher duty of care to invitees, which includes the responsibility to maintain safe conditions and warn of known dangers.
• Duty of Care: The duty owed to invitees typically includes the requirement to make the premises safe and to warn of any known hazards.
• Open and Obvious Danger: A property owner may not be liable for injuries resulting from open and obvious dangers, as the expectation is that individuals can perceive them and take appropriate action to avoid them.

Application

1. Invitee or Licensee: Jo is classified as an invitee because she entered the CCM facility for a business purpose beneficial to the company (purchasing products). CCM invited her onto their premises to conduct business.

2. Duty of Care: As an invitee, CCM has a duty to ensure that Jo’s visit is safe. This includes properly maintaining the premises and addressing any hazards. Given that the employee had previously informed the employer about the risks posed by unmarked wheel stops, it indicates that CCM was aware of the condition and failed to take appropriate action to mitigate the risk. Therefore, they may be considered negligent for not addressing this known hazard.

3. Open and Obvious Danger: The determination of whether the wheel stop constitutes an open and obvious danger would depend on whether a reasonable person in Jo's situation would recognize the danger. Since the wheel stop was not clearly visible due to the lack of contrasting paint and Jo was a newcomer unfamiliar with the layout, the danger may not be considered open and obvious. Arguments can be made that a reasonable person may not have easily identified it as a hazard, especially given the overcast conditions that could further obscure visibility.

Conclusion

Jo Dog likely has a valid premises liability claim against Cas Cosmetics and Moo, Inc. because she is an invitee, and CCM owes her a higher duty of care to ensure she is safe while on their property. They were aware of the potential hazard posed by the unmarked wheel stop and did not take steps to address it. Furthermore, the wheel stop may not be considered an open and obvious danger, which supports Jo's claim of negligence. Therefore, Jo stands a reasonable chance of success in her personal injury action against CCM.