To evaluate Jo's premises liability claim against Cas Cosmetics and Moo (CCM) using the FIRAC model, we will analyze the case through the following elements: Facts, Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion.
FACTS:
Jo Dog, a purchasing agent for MegaSalon, was injured after tripping over an unmarked concrete "wheel stop" while visiting the Cas Cosmetics and Moo center in Franklin. The wheel stop was not painted a contrasting color, making it difficult to see against the parking lot pavement, especially on an overcast day. Jo suffered a broken arm and a dislocated elbow as a result. Prior to Jo's accident, an employee of CCM had experienced a similar incident and had informed the employer about the potential danger posed by the unpainted wheel stops. Jo has brought a personal injury action against CCM, alleging negligence in failing to adequately mark the wheel stop.
ISSUE:
- Is Jo an invitee or a licensee?
- What duty, if any, does the CCM facility owe to Jo?
- Is the "wheel stop" an open and obvious danger?
RULE:
-
Status as Invitee or Licensee: Generally, an invitee is someone who enters a property for business purposes or mutual benefit, whereas a licensee enters for their own benefit with the permission of the property owner. In this case, Jo is likely to be classified as an invitee because she was at the CCM facility for business purposes as a purchasing agent for MegaSalon.
-
Duty of Care: A property owner owes a higher duty of care to invitees. This duty includes ensuring that the property is free from unreasonable risks of harm that the owner knows about or should know about. Property owners must also take reasonable steps to address hazards that could cause injuries.
-
Open and Obvious Danger: An open and obvious danger refers to a hazard that is apparent, and that a person exercising ordinary vigilance would recognize and avoid. If a danger is classified as open and obvious, this can potentially absolve the property owner of liability, as the invitee is expected to notice and avoid such dangers.
APPLICATION:
-
Status: Jo is an invitee because she was on the property for her employer's business purposes. Her presence was not merely social but rather connected to her work responsibilities.
-
Duty of Care: As Jo is classified as an invitee, CCM owed her a duty of care to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition. Given that an employee had previously tripped over the same wheel stop and had notified management about the hazard, CCM should have been aware of the risk the unmarked wheel stop posed to visitors and should have taken appropriate measures to mitigate this risk.
-
Open and Obvious Danger: The argument that the wheel stop is an open and obvious danger may be disputed. The fact that Jo tripped over the wheel stop during overcast weather suggests that visibility was compromised. Moreover, the employee's previous incident implies that not all individuals may have noticed the hazard, which could indicate that it was not adequately marked. Therefore, it may not qualify as an open and obvious danger because the lack of contrast made it difficult for visitors, particularly those unfamiliar with the layout, to identify the danger.
CONCLUSION:
Jo has a valid premises liability claim against Cas Cosmetics and Moo. Given that she is classified as an invitee, and that the property had a duty to provide a safe environment, CCM may have breached this duty by not properly marking the wheel stop. Jo suffered injuries, which were directly caused by the lack of adequate visibility of the wheel stop, and these injuries can be traced back to the alleged negligence of CCM. Therefore, Jo has substantial grounds to pursue her personal injury claim based on the principles of negligence.