Business and store owners constantly face liability from customers who suffer injuries on the premises of the business or store. In a recently-filed lawsuit, June Medema alleged that she slipped in a puddle of vomit at a Wal-Mart, and as a result, suffered injuries.
Under a premises liability theory of law, generally speaking, a business or store may be liable for injuries that are caused due to the failure to make safe a dangerous condition on the premises.
In this case, if the plaintiff can demonstrate that Wal-Mart knew or should have known about the vomit, and failed to clean the vomit from the floor, and that this breach of duty caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, then the plaintiff may be able to recover damages for her apparently severe injuries.
There are several ways to prove that Wal-Mart either knew or should have known about the vomit on the floor. Some methods include the introduction of floor maintenance record sheets, store policy manuals on regular checking of the floor, and eyewitness testimony from employees or other customers.
Alternatively however, should a jury determine that Wal-Mart was not negligent in its duties as the owner of the property, and that perhaps somehow the plaintiff slipped in the vomit before any employees could have reasonably discovered and cleaned up the vomit, then obviously, the plaintiff will not prevail.
Depending on what the evidence presents, Wal-Mart may settle this lawsuit before it reaches a jury.