In particular, this is by the way Kresge designed, constructed or maintained their premises. Any public establishment has a legal responsibility for the safety of its patrons under the mode of operation rule. The plaintiff in this case need not show that Kresge had notice of the particular item or defect that caused the injury. To obtain damages under this particular rule, the plaintiff must prove 1) that the mode of operation of Kresge gave rise to a foreseeable risk of injury to customers (or others invited in) such as the plaintiff, and 2) that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the accident within that zone of risk. The Connecticut statute that the author is quoting is very typical ("Civil jury instructions: 3.9-17," 2008).
In the text there are five elements of negligence. This was not always so. There...
Duty, breach, cause and damage were among these. Arguments over which of the legal pigeonholes elements of a case were plugged into usually revolved around duty, breach and new questions of proximaty. This brought about the present five element regime (Owen, 2007, 672).
In this case, Ms Tom slipped on a liquid on the premises. In our text, this is clearly illustrated in element number one which requires a "normal person" to take all measures that a prudent person would take). In this case that would include keeping the floor clean of hazardous substances that would cause spills in the Kresge store. Just as the text uses driving as an example in element number one and states that a prudent driver would take all steps to prevent accidents, ergo, Kresge management and employees also have to do so by keeping the
