A woman shopper was injured when she slipped on the tiled foyer of a supermarket, which was wet after rain. The defendant argued that it wasn’t responsible for the slippery condition of the floor, and that it owed no general duty of care in negligence. As it had mopped the floor to minimise danger to customers, there was no unusual danger that would give rise to a strict liability on the occupier. How do you think a court might assess the defendant’s claim of no liability?
A woman shopper was injured when she slipped on the tiled foyer of a supermarket, which was wet after rain. The defendant argued that it wasn’t responsible for the slippery condition of the floor, and that it owed no general duty of care in negligence. As it had mopped the floor to minimise danger to customers, there was no unusual danger that would give rise to a strict liability on the occupier. How do you think a court might assess the defendant’s claim of no liability?
Related questions
Question
A woman shopper was injured when she slipped on the tiled foyer of a supermarket, which was wet after rain. The defendant argued that it wasn’t responsible for the slippery condition of the floor, and that it owed no general duty of care in negligence. As it had mopped the floor to minimise danger to customers, there was no unusual danger that would give rise to a strict liability on the occupier.
How do you think a court might assess the defendant’s claim of no liability?
AI-Generated Solution
AI-generated content may present inaccurate or offensive content that does not represent bartleby’s views.
Unlock instant AI solutions
Tap the button
to generate a solution