Great!

Under the traditional rules governing slip and fall cases, to impose liability the jury must determine that the defendant had reasonable time to discover the hazard and to remove it.

Is this rule in the best interest of society? Do we all benefit from allowing stores to keep their expenses lower? Or should stores be required to absorb these costs as part of their costs of doing business?

Is the rule in Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co. a better rule? The court there held that stores are liable for slips and falls if they result from dangerous conditions that are continuous or easily foreseeable.

Does Jasko go far enough? What if the dangerous condition is not continuous? What if it is not "easily" foreseeable? Should all slips and falls just be considered a cost of doing business?

Link back to assignment 4.

Back to the Problem Page