The Pennsylvania Superior Court has determined that a retail store had no duty to warn a patron of the known and obvious dangers posed by the cane of a blind employee.
In Campisi v. Acme Markets, the plaintiff-wife and a blind employee, who used a white aluminum guide cane, were walking down parallel store aisles. When the blind employee reached the end of his aisle, the plaintiff-wife rounded the corner of her aisle and tripped over the employee's cane. At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 and her husband $15,000 (loss of consortium). The trial judge granted Acme’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and entered judgment in Acme’s favor. The Plaintiffs appealed and the Superior Court affirmed the JNOV.
The issue for the appellate court was whether Acme owed a legal duty to warn of the dangers possibly posed by a blind employee. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument of the that a blind employee posed a dangerous or harmful condition. The Court explained that the Plaintiffs’ actions and responsibilities are relevant regarding known and obvious dangers. The Court evaluated the case in light of the Restatement (2nd) of Torts §343A and concluded that a customer's duty of ordinary care included looking for obstacles before exiting an aisle. The Court held that the blind employee's cane was a known and obvious danger; therefore, the store did not owe the Plaintiff-wife any legal duty to warn.
What It Means to You
This decision is instructive in further defining known and obvious dangers. A customer has a duty and a responsibility to look where he/she is going and that includes looking down. Customers must exercise ordinary care to avoid known and obvious dangers. This case reaffirms a customer's responsibility to be attentive. To determine if liability exists in a slip and fall case, an analysis must be undertaken in to determine whether the supposed danger was known and obvious. The attorneys at Cipriani & Werner are always available to assist you with claim/liability assessment.