Smith with comparative fault. The biggest fact being that she was not paying attention, because she was dealing with her 2 year old son. It does not seem that the store is not at all responsible for the injuries she sustained. Yes, the aisle check was done at the scheduled time, but it was checked by an older gentleman that wore prescription glasses. As in Wal-Mart v. Wright, 774 NE 2d 891 (2002) where Wright was found at comparative fault and awarded 30% less in damages, this too could be the case with Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith states negligence on the grocery stores behalf, but she too had a duty to pay attention to her surroundings. The grocery store in question has documented proof of an aisle check being done at 1:00
Smith with comparative fault. The biggest fact being that she was not paying attention, because she was dealing with her 2 year old son. It does not seem that the store is not at all responsible for the injuries she sustained. Yes, the aisle check was done at the scheduled time, but it was checked by an older gentleman that wore prescription glasses. As in Wal-Mart v. Wright, 774 NE 2d 891 (2002) where Wright was found at comparative fault and awarded 30% less in damages, this too could be the case with Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith states negligence on the grocery stores behalf, but she too had a duty to pay attention to her surroundings. The grocery store in question has documented proof of an aisle check being done at 1:00