About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

31 Duq. L. Rev. 587 (1992-1993)
Leveling the Playing Field between Merchants and Customers in Pennsylvania Slip and Fall Negligence Cases

handle is hein.journals/duqu31 and id is 603 raw text is: Leveling the Playing Field between Merchants and Customers in Pennsylvania Slip and Fall Negligence Cases INTRODUCTION A customer injured in a slip and fall incident in a supermarket in Pennsylvania will have to address a number of hurdles before he wins a recovery for his injuries. The toughest hurdle will most likely be the requirement of the Pennsylvania courts that the cus- tomer establish that the merchant had notice before the incident took place of the specific hazard which caused the plaintiff's fall, and that the merchant then failed to take reasonable steps to cor- rect it. This notice hurdle is often insurmountable and its exis- tence unduly tilts the table in favor of the merchant. This author submits that the Pennsylvania courts need to either apply the ex- isting law in this area in a more even-handed fashion or change the law to eliminate the bias against the consumer. Unless the court- room playing field is leveled to give the injured customer a fighting chance, slip and fall plaintiffs in Pennsylvania will continue to suf- fer defeat before the court. The basic tenet underlying negligence law in Pennsylvania, as well as in the nation generally, is the notion that every individual has a responsibility to see that the activities in which he or she engages do not expose others to unreasonable risks of harm.1 This concept is defined and limited in the area of civil tort litigation through the application of two elements: (1) a supposedly liable actor must first be found to have a duty to protect another from the foreseeable results of the actor's conduct and (2) the actor must fail to pursue reasonable efforts to fulfill that duty.2 In applying these general propositions, the courts and those practicing therein have found it useful to create verbal definitions and explanations of these general propositions as they apply to specific situations. Such definitions and explanations serve a useful purpose to the extent that they help to lead to similar results in 1. ' Borsa v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 207 Pa Super 63, 215 A2d 289, 291 (1965). 2. Palenscar v Bobb, 439 Pa 101, 266 A2d 478, 480 (1970).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most