Court Opinion

ID: 9670856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:27:17.628926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:10.967818
License: Public Domain

*384Michael J. Kelly, J.
(concurring in the result only). I concur in the result only because I believe defendant’s planning could have been so grossly indifferent to the perils of a given location as to constitute a breach of duty to its business invitees.
Regarding the claim of gross negligence, I believe that because the issue was directly addressed by the trial court it is properly preserved for our review. I further believe that the Legislature’s inertia in failing to adopt a gross negligence standard that supersedes the obsolete requirements of precedent and subsequent negligence is lamentable and anachronistic.