Faneuil Hall Case

904 Words2 Pages

A court is not likely to find that Faneuil Hall was negligent for failing to remove a banana peel that was lying on the floor of its market in which Sandy slipped on. Not only could the banana peel have been dropped by another customer after the custodians had already swept the floors of the business, but also, because Sandy arrived to Faneuil Hall several hours after the business had closed and when no Faneuil Hall employees were present, no employees could have seen and therefore been provided with an opportunity to remove the banana peel. A defendant may generally be held liable for negligence if someone on their premise slips on a banana peel that, based on a judgment of its appearance and condition, was on the floor for a considerable period of time such that an employee of the defendant should have reasonably been able to discover and subsequently remove it, or if in the exercise of due care, an employee should have seen it. See generally Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 94 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1911); Goddard v. Boston & M. R. Co., 60 N.E. 486 (Mass. 1901); Mascary v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., …show more content…

Goddard, 60 N.E. at 486. Similarly, in Mascary, although the plaintiff slipped on an aged banana peel while descending a flight of stairs owned by the defendant, the court ruled in favor of the defendant noting that the banana skin may have been dropped a moment before by a stranger to the defendant, or may have come upon the stair without fault of the defendant. Mascary, 155 N.E. at 637. In both Goddard and Mascary, it is clear that the condition of the banana peel was not used in either of these courts as a basis for which their verdicts were devised. See 60 N.E. at 486; 155 N.E. at

Open Document