Issue 1/96 · Online Edition · February, 1996
| A periodic newsletter on legal issues for clients and friends of David B. Forest, P.C., 42657 Garfield, Suite 211, Clinton Township, Michigan 48038 (810) 263-5690 | The Gavel MOVES! Hope your New Year is starting out as great as our is ... because the lead story is we've moved! As always, we hope you enjoy this issue. |
| Disclaimer: Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be or a substitute for legal advice. | |
LAW OFFICES MOVE!
As some of you have noticed,
we have been outgrowing our old offices. After 22 years, it was time
to leave the old farm house and move into a modern office. We are
still in Clinton Township, and have only moved about two miles west of
the old offices; the new offices are located at 42657 Garfield, Suite 211
[the zip changes to 48038]. We're located in the Clinton Oaks Professional
Plaza on the west side of Garfield, just South of 19 Mile (map).
It is just down the road from Macomb College, and will be convenient for
teaching the Business Law courses.
Also, the phone numbers had
to change. The general office number is (810) 263-5690 and the new
fax number is (810) 263-5696. The new offices are shared with
other attorneys, and there are a few nice features
some of you have very politely hinted at:
What won't change is the quality and level of
client service. If you're in the area, please stop in to say Hello!
COLLECTING MONEY
One key to successful collection
is to move as quickly as possible. It is best to think of overdue
accounts as perishable assets: The longer an overdue account ages, the
less likely it is that it will be successfully collected. According
to the Commercial Law League, accounts that are two months delinquent are
successfully collected 86% of the time; when an account is 12 months old
the success rate drops to 26%.
If someone owes you money or
you have a problem account, give us a call to discuss the matter.
|
CASES IN POINT: Slipping on groceries
'Slip and Fall' cases seem
to be more prevalent. On the one hand, many people are outraged at
the seeming explosion of these tort cases, particularly when the 'injury'
is bogus, or the person caused their own injury by not being careful or
not using common sense. On the other hand, if you are the one injured
because of someone else's negligence, you want fair compensation.
In slip and fall cases, one
of the most frequently sued entities is a grocery store. A store
is liable for injury resulting from an unsafe condition caused by its own
negligence. A store can also be liable when someone else caused the
condition and the store knows of it or the condition has existed long enough
that the store should have known of it.
The traditional example is
a banana: if the discarded peel on the floor is still yellow, it means
the condition is still fresh, and the grocer cannot be assumed to have
known of its existence on the floor. But is the discarded peel is
brown, it is presumed it has been there long enough that a reasonably prudent
grocer would have noticed it and eliminated the hazard.
The following two cases involve different produce, with different results.
· Grapes are Risky?
In a variation on the brown
banana peel concept, a grape's condition can be determinative of length
of time on the floor.
A customer at a Meijer store
in Royal Oak went through the check-out line and paid for her groceries.
As she was leaving the check out counter on her way out of the store, she
stepped on a grape and fell, sustaining injuries. She later testified
that "it felt as if the grape had previously been stepped on." The cashier
wiped up the area with a paper towel and discarded the towel and the grape.
In the subsequent lawsuit, the store moved for summary disposition since
there was no evidence that the grape had been on the floor very long. In
fact, the customer testified that after she stepped on the grape, she saw
it described it as "flat, white and juicy".
The store ultimately lost,
as the Court ruled that no one will ever know for sure what condition the
grape was since the Defendant "destroyed the evidence", and thus its condition
must be presumed to operate against the evidence destroyer. Plus, the evidence
that it had been previously stepped on (customer's description) was sufficient
to establish that it had been there long enough to give the store actual
or constructive notice. Ritter v Meijer, Inc..
· Rice is safer
A recent case concerning rice
went the other way: the Grocer prevailed.
A Kroger customer alleged that
while she was shopping, she slipped on rice that had been spilled.
The defendant grocer moved for summary disposition and won. The Court
agreed with the grocer that Plaintiff had not provided evidence that the
rice had been on the floor a sufficient length of time to give the grocer
constructive notice of the condition.
The Plaintiff tried to argue
that her case was similar to the stomped grape case (above), but to no
avail. The Court stated: "There is simply no indication that the rice had
been encountered by anyone before Plaintiff, much less that it had been
there [long enough]." Coleman v Kroger Co.
NEW PHONE NUMBER
|
Back to Gavel Index - click below.
Website © 2000 David B. Forest, P.C.