I would choose the perspective of the plaintiff, Fred Falldown.
It is important to know that any business which welcomes the public onto their premises is legally responsible with keeping those people safe. All the stores that invites the public in to purchase goods, face some obligations to keep customers out of harm. In this case the defendant FB Grocery is guilty of causing injury to Fred. There was a slippery substance on aisle five and Fred slipped due to that. As per the law of a Premises Liability case in the State of Texas the condition "a" is satisfied as the premise was dangerous. Fred cannot be said to be negligent as he never expected any slippery substance on the floor of the grocery. The condition was not so obvious, and there is no reason to blame …show more content…
Some states such as Texas consider the "comparative negligence" laws, which means that the injured person can also be held to varying degrees of responsibility for an injury. If the victim ignored posted warning signs or acted carelessly, they can also be held liable for the accident. Comparative negligence statutes will determine who will receive compensation for their losses and how much they are eligible to receive. This case is not a case of "comparative negligence”, because Fred could not be said to be negligent as none of us would expect the floor to be slippery when we are looking at the shelves trying to find something to buy. Usually there are warnings through signboards that communicate to the customers that the floor has been wiped and it is slippery. However, in this case noting mentioned about