In: Finance
An employee at the supermarket you manage mopped one of the aisles in the store and placed signs at the ends of the aisle to warn people not to use the aisle until the floor has dried. One customer walked around the sign, slipped, fell, and suffered serious injuries. Her lawyer comes to you with the following story. She says that she is going to sue the store for the negligence that led to the customer's injuries. However, she says that she doubts that she can win since case law in the state makes it clear that the sign is considered a reasonable warning so that contributory negligence by the customer would eliminate the liability of the store. This means that the customer will get nothing, but one can never be completely sure. The worst part is that the customer has no insurance, has incurred large hospital bills, cannot work for several months, and has no source of support.
The lawyer makes the following deal. She will forgo any fee for the case and will sue only for the amount equal to the medical costs incurred and the wages lost if you will agree to testify that there was no sign in place to warn that the floor was wet. The payment will be made by the insurance company. This will not affect your position with the insurance company, and you will save the attorney’s fees. Should you make such a deal? What if you knew that the law in mist states would provide an award because their laws hold the warning signs are insufficient and a complete physical barrier has to be in place? Discuss ethical issues.
After studying the given case in depth, in my opinion, it is the customer's fault that she did not see the warning sign and met with the accident. But we cannot say that it is entirely her fault because from a psychological perspective, when a customer comes to shop, his/her entire concentration is mainly on acquiring the goods. In this situation they might not be prepared for what may come out of ordinary. When a customer is walking in aisle, most of them would not bother to look what stays at the end of the aisle in general, especially in such crowded areas like a supermarket. Also, from the supermarket's employee, he/she did her job by putting up a sign.
From an ethical point of view, it is neither ones fault in my opinion.
As the supermarket manager, I would consider taking the deal because placement of barrier might have altogether avoided the accident though there is a negligence from her side she suffered the injuries, paid all medical bills, and has no one to support her. Although she has the maximum probability of losing the deal, it is on our ethical sense from psychological perspective for not placing a complete physical barrier in the way of the aisle which might have alerted the customer as she might have seen it or would have stumbled on it, which would have made the case even more one sided (supermarket). With regards to future considerations and avoiding such mistakes from now on as customers are the ones that prosper the business and to avoid bad mouth publicity by the customer I would consider the deal if I were a ethical person.