• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Costco can't move "I slipped on a slurpee" lawsuit

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,116
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
article

This is pretty insane...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A 74-year-old woman who said she was injured after falling in a Costco store in Florida beat back the retailer's effort to move the case to that state because it was too much trouble to defend itself in New York.
Theresa Danza sued Costco in her hometown of Brooklyn, New York, claiming she was hospitalized for spinal and shoulder trauma and needed months of treatment by a chiropractor after a tumble in a Costco in North Miami, Florida, on January 24, 2009.

Shouldn't Florida law and thus Florida courts be at issue here and not New York? This occurred in Florida. I would be totally surprised if this woman doesn't win something, given she is in New York, but I could totally see Costco winning an appeal in a federal court. This is insane.
 
If you see a mess on the floor don't slip on it. It should help avoid any sort of falling.

Messes happen in stores. Try to not WALK in them idiots. Why businesses should pay for such things is something I will never understand.

As for the whining from the judge about money. Meh, its part of society these days.
 
The issue is getting hurt in Florida and then suing in NY. Whether she has a case or not, I don't know but the suit should be held in FLorida.
 
I believe the Law states that Florida would have jurisdiction in this matter, but precedent is all over the place on this, and if the woman can show hardship, and various other legal tests the trial could be moved to NY. I doubt it very much, but the law on jurisdiction is sketchy, and it's all up to the judge, essentially.


Tim-
 
Costco has stores in NY. There's no doubt that NY courts have personal jurisdiction over them. Venue is also proper per NY law, which states:

"§ 503. Venue based on residence. (a) Generally. Except where otherwise
prescribed by law, the place of trial shall be in the county in which
one of the parties resided when it was commenced; or, if none of the
parties then resided in the state, in any county designated by the
plaintiff. A party resident in more than one county shall be deemed a
resident of each such county."

Courts also look at the convenience of the parties. In this case the alleged tort occurred in Florida, but I'm sure that a lot of the medical experts and witnesses will be in NY.
 
Yep, it could go either way.. My guess is that this woman will spend much of the next three years fighting just about this, and the relief sought by her will no doubt make her lawyers rich(er).. :)


Tim-
 
the law on jurisdiction is sketchy, and it's all up to the judge, essentially.

This is false on both counts.

The law of jurisdiction is not "sketchy," nor is it essentially up to the judge.
 
Costco has ongoing and continuous business in New York state, hence it is subject to the jurisdiction of New York's courts.

There is a sound basis for jurisdiction in this case, it is a non-issue. People like to spin cases like this as if it is plaintiff's lawyer run amok, but in reality Costco has an obligation to protect its customers from injury. This woman lives in New York, and Costco runs a business in New York, there is no reason she should have to trek down to Florida to get compensation for her injuries.
 
Yep, it could go either way.. My guess is that this woman will spend much of the next three years fighting just about this, and the relief sought by her will no doubt make her lawyers rich(er).. :)


Tim-

That's not what I was saying. Basically this is a no brainer. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in NY.
 
If you see a mess on the floor don't slip on it. It should help avoid any sort of falling.

Messes happen in stores. Try to not WALK in them idiots. Why businesses should pay for such things is something I will never understand.

As for the whining from the judge about money. Meh, its part of society these days.
It amazing people actually survive the day.
 
article

This is pretty insane...



Shouldn't Florida law and thus Florida courts be at issue here and not New York? This occurred in Florida. I would be totally surprised if this woman doesn't win something, given she is in New York, but I could totally see Costco winning an appeal in a federal court. This is insane.

All I have to say is that I think the whole "I slipped and fell on your property so it's your fault" is a crock of ****.
 
Well, it is up to the appeals process mostly when jurisdiction is contested, and YES circumstances do vary, and weigh heavily on the decision. My guss is that AdamT is correct in-that, Costco has stores in NY, but it may or may not have stores in the county where this woman resides? If not, then this woman will have a hard time getting a NY court to hear her case, BUT, hardship and travel could be a mitigating factor in deciding jurisdiction in this matter. Another factor would be if this woman spends a significant time each year in Florida, which a lot of New Yorkers do. If she does, her claim of hardship might get thrown out..

Point is that it isn't so cut and dry. Both FL, NY courts have subject matter jurisdiction, the case will come down to personal jurisdiction, and whether Costco or the plaintiff can make a showing that personal jurisdiction is relevant in decidiing this particular matter. If the matter was so cut and dry as you suggest, Guy, then why do we always spend years trying to resolve who has jurisdiction? :)


Tim-
 
All I have to say is that I think the whole "I slipped and fell on your property so it's your fault" is a crock of ****.

It's not that simple. Yes falling on one's property is not the question here. It's whether Costco was negligent, and whether this negligence was directly related to the incident.

Tim-
 
That's not what I was saying. Basically this is a no brainer. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in NY.

Well, what if the laws surrounding maintainence and upkeep are different in Florida than they are in NY? Not saying they are, but experience tells me that laws aboutt his that and the other things in-fact DO vary from State to State. THIS also is a factor in the jurisdiction question.

Tim-
 
Well, it is up to the appeals process mostly when jurisdiction is contested, and YES circumstances do vary, and weigh heavily on the decision. My guss is that AdamT is correct in-that, Costco has stores in NY, but it may or may not have stores in the county where this woman resides? If not, then this woman will have a hard time getting a NY court to hear her case, BUT, hardship and travel could be a mitigating factor in deciding jurisdiction in this matter. Another factor would be if this woman spends a significant time each year in Florida, which a lot of New Yorkers do. If she does, her claim of hardship might get thrown out..

Point is that it isn't so cut and dry. Both FL, NY courts have subject matter jurisdiction, the case will come down to personal jurisdiction, and whether Costco or the plaintiff can make a showing that personal jurisdiction is relevant in decidiing this particular matter. If the matter was so cut and dry as you suggest, Guy, then why do we always spend years trying to resolve who has jurisdiction? :)


Tim-

The case is filed in state court, so (federal) subject matter jurisdiction doesn't come into play. The case will go forward in NY.
 
It'll be filed in a State Supreme court for whatever county she resides.. Where did I say it would be federal?

Tim-
 
It's not that simple. Yes falling on one's property is not the question here. It's whether Costco was negligent, and whether this negligence was directly related to the incident.

Tim-

Please convince me that slipping is not negligence by the person who slipped.
 
It'll be filed in a State Supreme court for whatever county she resides.. Where did I say it would be federal?

Tim-

"Both FL, NY courts have subject matter jurisdiction...."

I assumed you were thinking about federal subject matter jurisdiction, but I guess not.
 
Please convince me that slipping is not negligence by the person who slipped.

Depends on the circumstances. Lets say that four customers have independently reported to the manager that something has been spilled in the first aid aisle: something slippery, like an icy beverage. An hour goes by and the manager still hasn't sent someone to clean it up. A customer slips and injures herself. The store was negligent because it has a duty of care to maintain a reasonably safe place of business.

If, OTOH, the spill just happened a minute before the fall, and somone had already been dispatched to clean it up -- probably no negligence.
 
article

This is pretty insane...

Shouldn't Florida law and thus Florida courts be at issue here and not New York? This occurred in Florida. I would be totally surprised if this woman doesn't win something, given she is in New York, but I could totally see Costco winning an appeal in a federal court. This is insane.

This is what you call insane? Seriously? A minor, token procedural request? This is on the level of one of your car tires being 3psi low. This is the kind of decision there doesn't even need to be a hearing for, but you want us to believe there was a full-blown trial-by-jury just to decide where the lawsuit was going to be held. Holy crap!

Notice how the article makes it sound like the poor, defenseless old woman had to "beat back" the big bad corporation. Oh noes! More like her pro-bono ambulance-chasing former used-car-salesman lawyer was sent a motion, he put down the scotch long enough to pen a 'response', the judge read both and snail-mailed each party his decision; and then to get some fame her trailer-trash patched-elbow bearly-passed-the-bar-on-the-3rd-try porno-mustache yellow toothed magnum-PI wannabe "lawyer" (who's probably also her son in-law) sent an anonymous tip to a few newspapers.

It's not Cosco's fault she spilled her drink...or that another customer just spilled immediately before her slip, and thus didn't have a reasonable amount of time to clean it. Good thing it wasn't hot coffee.

Relax folks, Cosco will settle. They always do....because if the lil old lady doesn't play along Cosco can drag this out past her death....she is 74, after all.
 
Last edited:
Yep I can see the writing on the wall, congress passing a helmet law to shop at Costco's..
 
Depends on the circumstances. Lets say that four customers have independently reported to the manager that something has been spilled in the first aid aisle: something slippery, like an icy beverage. An hour goes by and the manager still hasn't sent someone to clean it up. A customer slips and injures herself. The store was negligent because it has a duty of care to maintain a reasonably safe place of business.

If, OTOH, the spill just happened a minute before the fall, and somone had already been dispatched to clean it up -- probably no negligence.

I still argue that under those circumstances, it's unlikey the slippery substance isn't visible. Watch where you're walking.
 
If you see a mess on the floor don't slip on it. It should help avoid any sort of falling.

Messes happen in stores. Try to not WALK in them idiots. Why businesses should pay for such things is something I will never understand.

As for the whining from the judge about money. Meh, its part of society these days.

So what you're saying is: Don't stand in the bad?
 
I still argue that under those circumstances, it's unlikey the slippery substance isn't visible. Watch where you're walking.

This is your advice to an elderly woman? How heartless.
 
It's not that simple. Yes falling on one's property is not the question here. It's whether Costco was negligent, and whether this negligence was directly related to the incident.

Tim-

Yep, that is why we have courts. Assuming the woman was harmed as claimed, if the harm was the result of negligence on the part of the store or just on her own failure to take caution, the courts should rule accordingly.
 
Back
Top Bottom