Gould v. North Kitsap Business Park Management court case started in 2009 when the applicant tripped over an unmarked wheel stop in the mall’s parking lot belonging to the defendant (Gould v. North Kitsap, 2016). Suzette Gould, Frontier Back’s former employee, aimed to visit several malls owned by Marshalls to distribute Christmas cards. On the accident day, she wanted to attend DSC Industrial Supply and Road Rider Supply, but as she reached the parking lot, she found herself on the ground in excruciating pain. Trying to pick herself up, she found it impossible to stand up and had to cry for help. Paul came to rescue, and later in the hospital, it was identified that she had a broken arm and a dislocated elbow. In 2009 Gould accused North Kitsap of disregarding the road system rules (Gould v. North Kitsap, 2016). The plaintiff filed in court that the defendant’s negligence of painting the wheel stop caused the personal injury.
As a result of the trial, North Kitsap was found liable to Gould since the accident occurred at the territory belonging to the mall. Its owners, as well as the road engineers they collaborate with, should have considered labeling all road signs to prevent any accidents (ÄŚabarkapa, 2019). North Kitsap representatives claimed that each person should be mindful of their safety level; however, the evidence posed against Gould was insufficient to consider it presentable. The court applied the rule of law, claiming that each person’s safety can not be defined on the territory belonging to a specific business. It is conditioned by the statement that an organization must abide by the safety guidelines regarding the road system. On January 19, 2016, the case was ruled, proclaiming the defendant’s guilt (Gould v. North Kitsap, 2016). No duty breach to the defendant from Gould was identified.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed an appeal. The latter claimed that the wheel parking area was obvious and that Gould should have noticed it before entering the site. However, the court established that this condition was unknown to the plaintiff and rejected the appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed that North Kitsap breached its duty to Gould and was found guilty of the accident. The majority of the panel has confirmed disagreement with the defendant’s appeal and relinquished it.
I totally agree with the court’s ruling, and I believe each business should be aware of its adjacent territories, specifically those demanding road marking. Numerous cases where people were injured occurred on roads and parking lots due to the negligence of setting up the signs and marking the area (ÄŚabarkapa, 2019). Hence, North Kitsap is fully liable to the plaintiff and must take care of their surrounding area to avoid further accidents. One of the company’s employees reported tripping over the wheel stop in the past, meaning that the incidents may repeat (Gould v. North Kitsap, 2016). As a result, the court’s decision was right and timely.
In conclusion, the consideration that each person should mind their own safety is insufficient in cases when the area belongs to some organization. A business should comply with the safety guidelines if it owns land, a parking lot, or other adjacent territory. A fatal case could have led to a sentence; therefore, North Kitsap should check its area for any other road system inconsistencies and fix them in order to prevent any further incidents of injury.
References
ÄŚabarkapa, M. (2019). Road safety: From global to local and vice versa. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gould v. North Kitsap Business Park Management, LLC (No. 46358-0-II, Wash. Ct. App. 2016). Web.