For Every Body

Darren Nelson

Business and Employment Law

September 30, 2007

Case Study #2

Facts

On September 16, 1993 Harold Martin was shopping in the sporting goods section of Wal-Mart. As he walked past several pallets of shotgun shells he slipped and fell on some loose shotgun pellets that had fallen onto the floor. He lost feeling in his legs at several different times thereafter and ultimately was diagnosed by qualified persons with permanent paralysis to the front half of his left foot. In a lower court the jury found for the plaintiff, citing Wal-Mart did not exercise due care in removing the hazards that presented themselves. Wal-Mart appealed to the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Issues

Did Martin establish that Wal-Mart had either actual or constructive notice of the hazard on the floor? Did the jury instructions fail to accurately state Missouri law? Was the jury prejudiced by improper comments by Martin's counsel during closing arguments?

Decision

The court found the record indicated Wal-Mart had substantial constructive notice of the dangerous conditions presented. According to Sheil, Wal-Mart also had or could have had actual notice of the hazard presented. The court held that the jury instructions taken as a whole adequately charged them with the self-service instruction and sufficiently reflected Missouri law. The law states that the store is "deemed to have actual notice of foreseeable risks of danger." The court further decided that "the store knows that merchandise is likely to wind up on the floor and constitute a danger." The court also found no factual citations of inflammatory statements made by Mr. Martin's counsel.

Reasoning

Relevant to our discussion of the case at hand is the precedential case of Sheil v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. of 1989 that, due to the evolution of these stores, created an exception to the notion of actual and constructive notice in self-service stores. Prior to this court decision, "Missouri followed the traditional rule that required a plaintiff in a slip and fall case to establish the defendant had either actual (the store created or was aware of the hazard) or constructive (the dangerous condition was created for a sufficient length of time that the defendant should have reasonably known about it) notice of the dangerous conditions." The court found that because store patrons traverse the same aisles the employees do and are invited to inspect items on the shelves and replace them, "the storeowners must exercise due care to guard against dangers from articles left in store aisles." The court further stated that "the