What if you’re out shopping at the local Penny Pinchers, immersed in the fugue of commerce, when all of a sudden, you’re shocked back into a bewildered consciousness by the ominous and rapidly approaching footsteps of a ferocious animal bearing down on you? As you struggle to orient yourself, you begin to recognize the vicious beast’s malevolent growl rising in volume, competing only with the sound of your rapidly exploding heart which is beating a drum in your ears. Bewildered, you arrive at the moment when reason departs and instinct prevails, and you suddenly find yourself sprinting in the opposite direction of your defiant stalker. After running for what felt like miles, you anxiously turn to see if you’ve managed to escape your predator. Just before the animal comes into view …WHAM!!!…you’ve slammed into a freezer at the end of the aisle. At least you still have your sense of humor when you come to realize that you were the prey of a four-pound dachshund named Sophie.
Earlier this month, the Mississippi Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a local outlet of Penny Pinchers, a regional discount grocery chain, in a case where a patron alleged the exacerbation of a pre-existing hip condition which occurred when…you guessed it…she ran from a dog in the store and collided with a freezer display at the end of an aisle. The plaintiff claimed that the puppy constituted a dangerous condition on the property, and that, as such, Penny Pinchers negligently failed to maintain the store in a safe condition by not properly restraining the wiener dog or warning customers of his fearsome presence.
In finding against the plaintiff, the Mississippi Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s decision that Sophie created a dangerous condition at Penny Pinchers which made them liable for her injuries. In their ruling, the Court of Appeals stated Penny Pinchers had no duty to warn of the perils of the four-pound puppy because Sophie’s presence did not amount to a dangerous condition on the property about which Penny Pinchers knew or should have known. Sophie had never barked at or chased any other customers, and, thus, it was not reasonably foreseeable that she was likely to “attack” anyone.
However, another interesting question is what role the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition and irrational fear of dogs would have played if the appellate court had upheld the trial court’s decision. As a matter of common sense and intuition, it may seem outrageous that a person’s irrational fear of a rat-sized dog could cause her to take off running—only to injure herself when she runs into a large, unyielding appliance on display in a discount store. It may also seem outrageous that the same person would be legally entitled to compensation for the exacerbation of a pre-existing hip condition with origins entirely unrelated to the dog/freezer episode.
Well, California law does not specifically articulate a doctrine dealing with the pre-existing medical conditions of tort plaintiffs—there are no jury instructions discussing the law-school classic “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine or no statutes codifying the sentiment of “taking plaintiffs as you find them.” Instead, California law builds the “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine into the essential elements of a negligent tort claim by identifying it as question of causation.
California law employs the “substantial factor” test to determine causation in negligent tort actions. The “substantial factor” test asks whether or not a defendant’s negligent act was a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff’s particular harm. Further, California law also recognizes that if a tort defendant’s negligent act constitutes a “substantial factor:” in causing the plaintiff’s harm, that defendant cannot avoid responsibility simply because some other condition was also a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
Accordingly, while California does not specifically articulate an “eggshell plaintiff” doctrine or a “pre-existing medical condition” doctrine, California law does honor those principles through its use of the “substantial factor” test for causation. Moreover, the internal logic of the “substantial factor” doctrine may also be argued to take into account even this plaintiff’s irrational fear of dogs.
What’s the lesson to be learned? If you do not want to be exposed to the potential damages supported by the “substantial factor” doctrine, make sure you examine your property for all dangerous or even potentially dangerous conditions. You do not want to end up paying for someone’s trick knee (or hip) just because you wanted to bring your dog to the office every day. If you have questions, or if you are a business owner who needs to defend a premises liability suit, then contact James Higa at (415) 655-6820 or by email at higa@higagipsonllp.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment