A customer slips and falls on an unmarked spill in the entrance of a dry cleaning store, sustaining injuries. Under premises liability law, which of the store owner's actions would best serve as a defense against a negligence claim?
The store owner provided warnings regarding possible hazards.
The customer failed to pay for services rendered.
The store owner was unaware of the spill before being informed and took action after learning of it.
The wet floor was visible and easily identifiable.
The correct answer is that the store owner was unaware of the spill before being informed and took action after learning of it. This demonstrates that the owner did not have prior knowledge of the hazard and responded appropriately upon discovery. The other options are incorrect because failing to pay for services is not relevant to premises liability, the spill was not visible and easily identifiable, and providing warnings alone does not absolve the owner from addressing known hazards.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is premises liability law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a store owner to have knowledge of a hazard?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What actions can a store owner take after being informed of a spill?