Court Opinion

ID: 9516568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:45:23.514045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:35.591373
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
I disagree with the majority’s assertion that Jaworski v Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc, 403 Mich 689; 272 NW2d 518 (1978), does not control this case. Jaworski was decided before comparative negligence replaced contributory negligence as the law of this state. Its holding, however, is still applicable. Jaworski held that, on the facts of that case, the plaintiff could not have been found negligent. Perhaps the Court was sympathetic to the plaintiff’s position because under the then-current system of contributory negligence a negligent plaintiff could not recover. But the Court’s opinion evidences no such concern. As such, Jaworski is still applicable in today’s system of comparative negligence and controls this case.
*420The majority distinguishes this case from Jaworski on the ground that, unlike Jaworski, there was no evidence here that plaintiffs view was obstructed. The presence of the obstructing handcart in Jaworski was not critical to the Court’s holding. The Court stated clearly the factors underlying its holding:
"In the instant case, it is undisputed that plaintiff neither saw the cottage cheese on defendant’s floor, nor did she hear it fall to the floor. Further, the evidence as to the color of the floor supports the conclusion that the spilled cottage cheese was relatively inconspicuous. Finally, plaintiff testified that she slipped and fell on the cottage cheese on the floor as she reached for a carton of milk on the dairy counter. Even on the basis of the testimony most favorable to defendant, the fact remains that plaintiff slipped and fell as her attention was naturally directed toward the milk display counter.” (Footnote omitted.) Jaworski, supra, p 698.
This case presents a remarkably similar set of facts. The plaintiff was unaware of the water on the floor. The water was relatively inconspicuous. Finally, plaintiff slipped as she was looking for plants.
I agree that Jaworski did not announce a new standard of care for supermarket patrons. The facts of this case, however, are indistinguishable from those in Jaworski. Thus, I would hold that under Jaworski reasonable minds would not differ in concluding that plaintiff was not negligent in failing to use reasonable care for her own safety.
I would reverse.