Reference no: EM131101171

There are 3 report to be written so, I am giving you $25 for it.

1.

CORBIN v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC.
NO. C-1637.
648 S.W.2d 292 (1983)
Gary CORBIN, Petitioner, v. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court of Texas. April 6, 1983.

Plaintiff Gary Corbin sued Safeway Stores, Inc. ("Safeway") for damages resulting from personal injuries he suffered when he slipped on a grape and fell in the produce department of a supermarket owned by Safeway. The evidence at trial established that Corbin slipped directly in front of the self-service grape bin. Corbin testified that he saw no mat or other flooring covering of any kind in the area where he fell. Safeway's employees testified that company policy required mats in front of its grape bins because Safeway recognized that customers frequently dropped grapes on the floor and store employees were unable adequately to supervise the floor constantly to ensure that it remained free of grapes.

Following presentation of all evidence, the trial court granted Safeway's motion for direct verdict. The court of appeal affirmed and Corbin appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

SPEARS, Justice.

The question presented is whether an invitee who sustains personal injuries from slipping and falling in a store may recover damages by introducing evidence that a proximate cause of the fall was the storeowner's failure to use reasonable care to protect its customers from the known and unusually high risks accompanying customer usage of a self-service display of goods. We hold that such proof establishes a right to have a jury determine the storeowner's liability, even in the absence of evidence showing the storeowner's actual or constructive knowledge of the presence on the floor of the specific object causing the fall.

.... When an occupier has actual or constructive knowledge of any condition on the premises that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees, he has a duty to take whatever action is reasonably prudent under the circumstances to reduce or to eliminate the unreasonable risk from that condition. The occupier is considered to have constructive knowledge of any premises defects or other dangerous conditions that a reasonably careful inspection would reveal....

In [previous] cases, we emphasized that an invitee's suit against a store owner is a simple negligence action.... As a result, the standard of conduct required of a premises occupier toward his invitees is the ordinary care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under all the pertinent circumstances.... Consequently, an occupier's liability to an invitee depends on whether he acted reasonably in light of what he knew or should have known about the risks accompanying a premises condition, not on whether a specific set of facts or a specific breach of duty is established.

In this case, Corbin was Safeway's invitee.... To recover from Safeway, therefore, Corbin had the burden to prove (1) that Safeway had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises; (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm to Corbin; (3) that Safeway did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or to eliminate the risk; and (4) that Safeway's failure to use such care proximately caused Corbin's personal injuries....

Corbin claimed at trial that there were three dangerous conditions in Safeway's store. First, he alleged that the presence on the floor of the specific grape on which he slipped posed an unreasonable risk of harm and that Safeway had constructive knowledge of that risk. Safeway does not deny the unreasonableness of that risk, but contends Corbin produced no proof of the requisite constructive knowledge. We agree. Corbin's testimony that the grapes lying around him were discolored and ruptured does not tend to prove that the grapes had been on the floor a sufficient time to impute knowledge of their location to Safeway. The aging and discoloration may just as likely have occurred before as after the grapes fell, and the rupturing could have been caused during or soon before Corbin's accident. Furthermore, the trial court offered to let Corbin submit this issue to the jury, but he declined to do so. He therefore waived this basis for holding Safeway liable.

Corbin alleged that Safeway's chosen self-service method for displaying green grapes in an open, slanted bin above a green linoleum tile floor resulted in an unreasonable risk of customers falling on grapes that have fallen or been knocked to the floor. Safeway admitted that at the time of Corbin's fall it knew of this unusually high risk associated with its grape display. It argues, however, that it is not obligated to protect customers from the acts of other customers in causing grapes to fall to the floor, regardless of whether those acts are foreseeable. Safeway believes the only duty it owes its customers with respect to the prevention of these kinds of falls is to pick up whatever objects it finds or should find on the floors of the store.

We do not agree. In all negligence actions, the foreseeability of the harmful consequences resulting from the particular conduct is the underlying basis for liability. Thus, Corbin's right to recover from Safeway depends on his showing Safeway's knowledge of the foreseeable harm of some course of conduct or method of operation. He is not required to prove one particular instance of negligence or knowledge of one specific hazard, as Safeway contends....

Safeway acknowledged its full awareness of every circumstance under which it operated the self-service grape display, but contended a walk-off mat was in place at the time Corbin fell. Because the placing of such a mat in front of the grape display was a function of general store maintenance, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Safeway, through its employees, had failed to put the mat in place. This inference would satisfy the requirement of notice to Safeway.... A jury question existed on whether Safeway knew or should have known of the premises condition upon which Corbin's claim is based. The only remaining liability issues are whether the condition in which

Safeway maintained its grape bin at the time Corbin was injured posed an unreasonable risk of harm; if so, whether Safeway used the ordinary care of a reasonably prudent person to reduce or to eliminate that risk; and, if Safeway was negligent, whether its negligence proximately caused Corbin's injury....

The testimony of the two Safeway employees provides some probative evidence that the self-service grape bin in conjunction with the absence of any covering on the store's green linoleum tile floor posed an unusually high risk of customer falls resulting from grapes dropped on the floor. We believe that reasonable jurors could have concluded that this risk was unreasonable; accordingly, this question was a matter for the jury to determine.

On the question of the reasonableness of Safeway's conduct, there is evidence that Safeway's response to the risks accompanying the grape display was to require its stores to place walk-off mats in front of such displays. There was also evidence that no mat was in front of the grape display at the time Corbin fell. Furthermore, Safeway acknowledges that it took no other action, such as bagging the grapes, warning customers, or conducting frequent inspections, to minimize this hazard. Under these circumstances, because reasonable minds could conclude that Safeway did not use reasonable care to take some preventive measure against a foreseeable harm, the question of its negligence was for the jury to decide.

Finally, Safeway concedes that Corbin fell within a few feet of the grape display. This fact would support a jury finding that the absence of a mat or other preventive measure was a foreseeable cause-in-fact of Corbin's fall. Corbin therefore had a right to have a proximate cause issue decided by the jury....

Safeway also argues that if the directed verdict is not upheld, this court will be penalizing Safeway for its diligence in instituting the limited use of walk-off mats as a company-wide safety measure. This argument reflects a misunderstanding of the basis for negligence liability. Safeway's liability to Corbin depends on its knowledge of store conditions posing risks to customers and the failure to act reasonably in response to those risks, not on the failure to comply with a company policy. If reasonable store conduct includes the use of mats or other floor coverings or even warnings in front of a particular display, then Safeway may be held liable for not using them, regardless of whether company policy requires them.

Many states now recognize that a storekeeper may be held liable for any dangerous premises condition about which he should be aware, not just for specific objects left on the floor by customers. Our holding here is consistent with the basic rule accepted by these states.... [Judgment reversed and remanded for new trial.]

2. LAW AS A SWORD OR SHIELD

Laws can be used as either a sword (to attack) or a shield (to protect) a company's economic base.

For example, a U.S. patent is a licensed monopoly granted by the government (USPTO) to a specific person or business entity to make money off of this invention for a certain period of time. This means no one else can market, sell or make a profit off of this invention without paying the inventor a royalty first. U.S. patents protect the inventor in the U.S. but not overseas, unless the patent is also filed in the other country. Patents can enhance or restrict trade, depending on the circumstances.

Apple vs Samsung is an interesting story about two multinational companies who are in an economic conflict that spans the globe. They use the patent courts in different countries to advance their objectives, sometimes to keep a competitor from entering the market (as a shield, e.g., Apple sues to prevent Samsung from bringing its Galaxy smartphones into the United States to compete with its iPhones), or to prevent a competitor from entering the market in a timely manner (as a sword, e.g., Apple suing to keep Samsung's competing smartphones from entering the Australian market until after the Christmas holidays).

It appears the patent laws in the United States and Europe tend to favor Apple. This is a plus for Apple because these are currently the largest markets for its products and they represent, by in large, the wealthiest nations. However, the largest population centers and the areas for the highest growth potential appear to be in Asia, Africa and South America. These areas may favor Samsung because it has a larger line of cheaper products that are more affordable to the masses. Will the desire to own a top-of-the-line Apple phone win over its high costs to people in other countries where the cost of living is less but so is their earning potential?

Who do you think will win in the long run and why? Is this a slam-dunk for one party (i.e., a sure win) or a war of attrition where the party with the strongest staying power wins (i.e., last man/woman standing)? Explain.

If we don't like what Samsung is doing to Apple, what about knock-off clothing from fashion designers? Once a dress is shown on the red carpet like the Oscars, within 24-48 hours a knock-off is ready to hit the stores for men and women who want to like and dress like the movie stars and celebrities. Why can stores sell knock-offs of designer dresses but stores can't sell knock offs of iPhones? Is there any difference? Explain.

Discuss all or some of the issues presented above. Remember to submit your comments and contribute to this discussion.

3. BEING LEGALLY RIGHT OR FINANCIALLY RIGHT

Earlier, we discussed using the law as a "sword or shield" to protect the economic interests of a business. We used the Apple vs Samsung conflict as the context for this discussion.

Another important concept that goes hand-in-hand with this discussion is what it means to be legally right and financially right, and they are not the same.

Being "legally right" means that the law is on your side. Being "financially right" means you have the money to protect your business interests against competing interests. In America, the law only allows you to have your "day in court," but it doesn't guarantee that you will win if you go to court.

The law may be on your side but if you don't have the money to litigate to protect your legal rights, you will lose. On the other hand, law may be against you but if you have more money than the other party to throw at the problem, you may prevail. In litigation if all things are equal, meaning either side can mount a good case, the party with the deeper pockets generally win.

Here's an example of this concept in action, this time in the context of trademark litigation. In this case, Apple Inc. is suing Robin Peng, an entrepreneur and inventor, for calling his product AppleCore, a colorful patented cord organizer that looks like an apple's core used to organize wires and power cords. Apple Inc. doesn't sell this type of product and its in a different industry. What do you think of the merits of the lawsuit. Do you think it's a fair fight? Who do you think has a more compelling case? Should the rich and powerful always win? What about the emotional, mental, physical and financial costs to the Mr. Peng and his family?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2015/05/28/applecore-vs-apple-corp-how-one-entrepreneur-is-slicing-the-branding-challenge/