Source: https://www.rhodeislandpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/ri-slip-and-fall-decision-shiny-floor-not-enough-absent-foreign-substance-to-prove-negligence/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:33:59+00:00

Document:
The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently decided the slip and fall case of Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc. The Rhode Island Supreme Court Ruled in favor of the store determining that the store was not at fault for the premises liability accident causing the Plaintiff’s injury. The Court affirmed the summary judgment ruling in favor of the Defendant store.
The Court decided that a mere allegation that a floor was shiny was not enough to establish negligence on the part of the store absent proof that there was a substance such as wax, water, polish etc. on the floor.
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant in in Providence Superior Court and her Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys alleged that the defendant was negligent and that the stores carelessness caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. The seriously injured victim alleged that the business failed to maintain the area in “good, clean and safe condition,” and that the store had a duty to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’ primary allegation of negligence was her allegation that “the floor was shiny,” HABERSHAW v. MICHAELS STORES, INC.
The department stores Insurance Defense Attorneys argued that “plaintiff could not prove that a dangerous condition existed on the premises at the time of her fall.” HABERSHAW v. MICHAELS STORES, INC.
The Supreme Court of RI set forth the applicable negligence standard of care when the Court Stated: “”to exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises * * * includ[ing] an obligation to protect against the risks of a dangerous condition existing on the premises, provided the landowner knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered, the dangerous condition.” Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Association, Inc., 820 A.2d 929, 935 (R.I.2003) (quoting Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744, 752 (R.I. 2000)); accord Mead v. Papa Razzi Restaurant, 840 A.2d 1103, 1107 (R.I.2004)…Although a business invitor is not a guarantor of the safety of those who might be expected on the property, a duty remains to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for prospective business invitees. Terry v. Central Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713, 716 (R.I.1999).
The Court further restated Premises Liability law in RI : “To recover in a slip-and-fall action such as the case before us here, a plaintiff “must present evidence of an unsafe condition on the premises of which the defendant was aware or should have been aware, and that the condition existed for a long enough time so the owner of the premises should have taken steps to correct [it].” Bromaghim v. Furney, 808 A.2d 615, 617 (R.I.2002) (citing Barone v. Christmas Tree Shop, 767 A.2d 66, 68 (R.I. 2001)).
Decision of Rhode Island Supreme Court: ” The plaintiff did not testify that her fall was occasioned by any foreign substance on the floor, or that polish or wax had been negligently applied to the floor by defendant. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that would give rise to a reasonable inference that a hazardous condition, created by defendant, existed.
Premises liability law is the body of law which makes the person who is in possession of land or premises responsible for certain injuries suffered by persons who are present on the premises.
^ Bulletin #4: Ground and Floor Surface. United States Access Board.
^ a b c d ExpertLaw website. Retrieved January 12, 2009.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.