In Smith v. Wal-Mart (1994) the Plaintiff fell in an area where a Wal-Mart employee was using water and cleaning substances to remove wax buildup from the floor.
The Court laid out the rules for a premises liability case of being, that the storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard which caused the fall or had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard.
The defense argued that the floor was slick without evidence of a hazard evidence that the floor was slick, without evidence of a hazardous as per Howard v. K-Mart. The Court ruled that an employee stripping wax was enough of a hazard to go to the jury.
So we have two conditions:
1. Storekeeper was responsible for creating the hazard; or
2. Had Actual or Constructive knowledge of the existence of the hazard.
In Garvin v. Bi-Lo (2001), cans were stacked as an endcap of a grocery store display and the Court held that a summary judgment was in appropriate.
The plaintiff must show either: (1) the defendant or the defendant's employees created the condition or; (2) the defendant had notice of it, citing Cook v. Food Lion, Inc. (1997).
There were no reported falling merchandise cases in South Carolina, but the Court quoted Am Jur stating::
Store owners are under a duty to so display their goods that they will not ordinarily fall and injure customers who are in the exercise of ordinary care for their own safety; this includes a duty to take reasonable measures to guard against injuries caused by the falling of stacked merchandise which may result from the actions of other customers.
The Court ruled that there was no requirement to show prior injuries because the store created the condition and there was enough of a question of fact to put in front of the jury.
Coming up Next as other cases citing Smith v. Wal-Mart:
Singletary v. S.C. Department of Education
