Jury Verdict Auto Accident

On the case of the left turning vehicle in front of the speeding oncoming car the verdict was:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF Left turning vehicle

The vote was close-

55% Negligent

45% Not Negligent


A Question of Fact- Slip and Fall

Plaintiff- Patron at a convenience store was walking toward the public bathroom. An employee was mopping in the area. The patron walked onto the freshly mopped floor but did not know it had been mopped and was still wet. The patron fell severely shattering his/her knee requiring total knee replacement.

Defendant- The convenience store stated the floor was wet but there was a wet floor sign near the place where the patron fell warning the patron of the wet floor and denied any responsibility for the injury.


  • The patron stated he/she did not see any wet floor sign in the area before the fall and did not know the floor was wet.
  • The convenience store manager took pictures of the patron on the floor after the fall which showed the wet floor sign within 2 feet of him/ her on the floor and stated he/she should have seen the sign and was duly warned of the wet condition. The mopper/employee testified the sign was visible to the patron at the time of the fall.
  • The patron stated the sign was placed next to him/her after the fall by the manager before the picture was taken.
  • An independent witness who saw the patron fall stated the wet floor sign was not present at the time of the fall but did not know if there was a visible wet floor sign in the vicinity before the fall.

Should the convenience store be found liable for the customer’s injury.  Cast your vote below:


Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Should the convenience store be found liable for the customers injury?