Foreign Substance Requires “Reasonable Care” Warning

Facts: A customer slipped and fell on the lobby floor of a Post Office while trying to mail a letter for his employer, injuring his face and head. The customer claimed that he slipped because the lobby floor was wet due to other customers tracking water into the Post Office during a rainstorm.

The customer sued the Post Office under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that the Post Office's negligence in allowing water to remain on the lobby floor caused his slip-and-fall accident. The customer's workers' compensation insurance carrier also sought to be reimbursed under the FTCA if the customer prevailed, because it had paid his medical bills under a workers' compensation policy.

The Post Office asked for a judgment in its favor without a trial, arguing that the customer failed to establish that the Post Office had been negligent or breached any duty of care to him.

Decision: The court denied a judgment in favor of the Post Office without a trial.

Reasoning: The court disagreed with the Post Office's argument that the customer had not shown negligence or the breach of a duty by the Post Office. To prevail in his FTCA case for negligence, the customer had to prove: (1) a duty on the part of the Post Office; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) a resulting injury. The court noted that the Post Office owed a duty to its patrons to maintain its premises in a condition that is reasonably safe. However, this slip-and-fall case was unique because the water on the lobby floor had not been produced by the Post Office or its employees.

In slip-and-fall cases involving a foreign substance on a business premises that had not been caused by the owner, manager, or employees, the injured person had to prove that: (1) he had an encounter with a foreign substance or other dangerous condition on the business premises; (2) the encounter was a substantial factor in causing the accident and his injuries; and (3) by reason of the presence of the substance or condition, the business premises were not in a reasonably safe condition for customers to use. To get a judgment without a trial, the owner had to show that it had fulfilled its duty of care to customers by exercising reasonable care in the maintenance of the premises under the circumstances.

Here, the Post Office contended that it exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. Specifically, it asserted that it placed rugs in the vestibule and outer lobby area to keep the floor dry and free from dirt and debris. The Post Office also pointed out that a custodian and the supervisors and clerks at the Post Office regularly checked the lobby area during the day. The Post Office claimed that it discharged its duty to warn customers about the wet floor because it properly warned them of the existence of a potential hazard with a “Wet Floor” sign, and therefore, it used reasonable care under the circumstances.

The court said that a jury was necessary to decide whether the Post Office had provided an adequate warning about the dangerous condition to the customer. That is, the jury would have to determine whether the Post Office employees should have observed and remedied the wet floor before the customer fell and whether a warning should have been posted in the area of the lobby where the customer fell, rather than in just the vestibule and inner lobby. Accordingly, the court ruled against the Post Office.

• McIntosh and Kentucky Associated General Contractors Self Insurers' Fund v. United States of America, March 2010