-------------------------------------------------
Top of Form Mae Tom sued S.S.Kresge in 1977 because she slipped and fell on a liquid substance. In order for Ms. Tom to file a tort of negligence five elements must exist in order for her to be successful. The first one is duty and that is, each of us has the duty to act like an ordinary and reasonably prudent person in all circumstances. When we do not do this we are negligent. This requires an examination of all conditions and circumstances surrounding an event that leads to an injury. In other words all persons have a duty to use ordinary care to prevent others from being injured as a result of their conduct. If the store owner would have had a wet floor sign available this accident could have been avoided. The second element is breach of duty. There must be a determination that the defendant fell short of the standard of care and the duty or breached that duty for the plaintiff to recover on the basis of negligence. S.S. Kresge owes a duty to all customers that come to the store an environment of safety. There has to be a safe environment for all customers who are in the store. The third element to be considered is that of causation, and this comes after establishing a duty and a breach. Mae Tom must establish that the breech of duty was the cause of the damages. There is a test that is used for this element, the "but for" test-but for the action of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been injured. Kresege breached its duty to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition and its failure to do caused the Ms. Tom's injuries. The "but for" test is limited by the zone of danger rule which requires the plaintiff to be in the zone of danger when the injury occurs. Zone of danger includes all people who could forseeably be injured if a duty is breached. If there was no liquid on the floor there would ne