business practice rule

You are really an expert in this field and your answer is so organized and cleared some of my confusion, thanks.

I think the kid-and-mon-drowned-in-a-junked-swimming-pool case falls in a broader attractive nuisance rule that covers injuries to children who were unaware, because of their immanurity, of risks associated with a landowner's property. the rule especially applies to child trespassing case. I am not sure if it can be applicable here.

Business practice rule is not a statutory rule. it was established by court.in Randall v. K-Mart Corp., in which the plaintiff slipped on loose birdseed in an aisle in defendant's store.After being unable to prove constructive notice, Plaintiff sought to invoke the rule. this rule applies to self-service pattern of bussiness. and some court cocluded that debris on the floor is to be anticipated such business operation, and the fact can reasonably be concluded that such hazard to business invitees consitituted a risk of harm within the reasonable foresight of the defendant and that it should have taken reasonable steps to obviate the danger. the 2d Circuit in Randall said a"merchant that uses such a self-service method of sale must bear the burden of showing what steps were taken to avoid the foreseeable risk of harm."

所有跟帖： 

• Sounds like a good rule -66196- ♀ (1628 bytes) () 12/08/2005 postreply 13:30:30