ÿWPCþ ±`=F–èZ2a5äùáÿ«õÿÊ>öÓݦ»ÐFé æjáVÙ‰–¥FÁÇ!øZ˜ÐZéZâ:Ôծ܄Ø>×$2Y®#ß[‘r†¶¯÷@bi[uyƒÚLƒuÞt9àHBå¨op¸H›Y8ËokƒbœÍƒb¦œ¨òé`-öfv˜ØÄÄlמAw/ž¹(ÎI‰[WT‰è„= 3 Î•xµ‹¶yCa´m ŠÃ|õáºê«tLÓ™ ¤ÑÓ(ÄŽ&ÐÑÆ·³Ô ™Óv1Gˆnl¹L*šz‹Ä%Öá‘ĸωé6l‰B³Ðì$üÌÿ¼)ÕÉÅü)J¸é6NÄ$zÜV6)±Ç^ž|ÜJš|°‘𮦙øZUR)×®˜¯ µóÅh.hñàú~á Ø0úkÍó99k˜Ÿð$óX*¨NÙxm¶›ííûºÃ#ÿ¬ŸŽ`B–8¶á*Çhão Y¶óf±UUI RLX×2”ÑnêÄ}j îcËÀЉt'ú]Qr§ݸäÿ£pÒ<»˜±ï²-&›È똰V:’¶-ïÉ­ÚʰmMud†ˆ1±ØÓ¦}€*‚Â.Í3Ω Jû»­Š ù­úÒsœ9uùõŽô ڲÿY 3#!ÊUNë %9 0G?U:†^ Àw@Ì4  / m1e HMR 01V 0=‡ 0ÈÄ 0>Œ 0ÊÊ 0´” 0´H 0aü 0´] 0´ 09Å 0Üþ 02Ú 0ü  0: 0…B 0_Ç 0 & 0k0 0•› B*0 D3Z D+ 0•¸ 0çM 064 0j 0:r 0h¬ 0FU6ZU>U*Îèøøø à˜Brother HL-1440 series (Copy 2)ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX( Í$¡¡Ô€X&XXXÔ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularÝ~u,  [ [ U D UEE[ƒB,3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ 0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡,<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡,<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡,<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ª®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó=€#(€˜ **=ÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡.%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ-€$€ -ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ&ÿÿ0 d d""""'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ª®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ=€#(€˜**=ÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡.%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ-€$€ -ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡,<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡,<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡-ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`Arial PublixElviaSorianorebuttableinvitees foreseeabilitydispositiveSchapp L.Ed S.Ct EEOCÿÿSEGH_COUNSELÝ ƒ Í!ÝÔ€XOìXXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôòòòòò òCase€Law€Updateó óóóóóÐ ° ÐÌÌò òPersonal€Injury/Premises€Liability/Slip€and€Fall/Foreign€Substance/ConstructiveÐ f¶ ÐNotice/Mode€of€Operation/Dangerous€Conditionññó óññññ/Burden€of€Proof/ññññBurden€Shiftingññññó óññññññ€ññññBññññññññyññññññññ€€ññññÐ R¢ ÐÌòòòòEvelyn€Owens€and€John€Owens,€Petitioners,€Vs.€Publix€Supermarkets,€Inc.,Ð $ t ÐRespondent.€Elvia€Soriano€and€Angel€Soriano,€Petitionersóóóó,€vs.€BB€&€B€CASHÐ  \ ÐGROCERY€STORES,€INC.,€etc.,€Respondent,€ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÓ 1[SÓNos.€SC95667€&€SC96235,€02€So.€2dÏ315;€2001€Fla.€LEXIS€2270;€26€Fla.€L.€Weekly€S€756,€November€15,€2001ÌÌIn€consolidated€cases,€each€petitioner€injured€party€sued€a€respondent€premises€ownerÏfor€slip€and€fall€injuries.€The€Florida€Fifth€District€Court€of€Appeal€and€the€Florida€FourthÏDistrict€Court€of€Appeal€affirmed€each€trial€court's€directed€verdict€against€the€injuredÏparty,€and€each€injured€party€appealed.€Direct€conflict€with€the€Florida€Third€DistrictÏCourt€of€Appeal€was€acknowledged.€òòExistence€of€foreign€substance€on€businessÐ ä4 Ðpremises€floor€causing€customer€to€be€injured€created€rebuttable€presumption€premisesÏowner€did€not€maintain€premises€in€reasonably€safe€condition.óóÐ ° ÐÌIn€each€case,€the€injured€party€fell€on€a€discolored€piece€of€banana€on€the€owner'sÏpremise's€floor.€The€deteriorated€condition€of€the€foreign€substance€provided€a€sufficientÏbasis€for€the€injured€parties€to€survive€a€directed€verdict€as€a€directed€verdict€could€beÏaffirmed€only€where€no€proper€view€of€the€evidence€could€sustain€a€verdict€in€favor€ofÏthe€injured€parties.€The€aging€condition€of€the€banana€gave€rise€to€a€reasonableÏinference€that€the€aging€occurred€on€the€floor€and€was€circumstantial€evidence€of€theÏowner's€constructive€notice€of€the€dangerous€condition.€Additionally,€it€was€unfair€toÏplace€the€burden€on€the€injured€parties€to€establish€the€owner's€actual€or€constructiveÏnotice€when€the€owner€was€in€control€of€the€premises€and€the€evidence€on€which€noticeÏwas€based.ÌÌThe€owners€owed€a€duty€to€the€injured€parties€to€maintain€their€premises€in€a€safeÏcondition,€and€the€existence€of€transitory€foreign€substances€on€the€owners'€floors€wasÏnot€a€safe€condition.€The€nature€of€the€owners'€businesses€gave€rise€to€a€substantialÏrisk€of€injury€to€the€injured€parties€from€slip„and„fall€accidents,€and€the€injuries€wereÏcaused€by€accidents€within€the€zone€of€risk.€ÌÌThe€appellate€courts'€decisions€in€each€case€were€quashed,€and€the€matters€wereÏremanded.€The€opinion€was€applicable€to€all€cases€commenced€after€it€became€finalÏand€to€those€cases€already€commenced,€but€in€which€trial€had€not€yet€begun.€ÌÌAll€premises€owners€owe€a€duty€to€their€invitees€to€exercise€reasonable€care€to€maintainÏtheir€premises€in€a€safe€condition.€Despite€this€general€proposition,€when€a€person€slipsÏand€falls€on€a€transitory€foreign€substance,€the€rule€has€developed€that€the€injuredÐ ¾-)* Ðperson€must€prove€that€the€premises€owner€had€actual€knowledge€or€constructiveÏknowledge€of€the€dangerous€condition€in€that€the€condition€existed€for€such€a€length€ofÏtime€that€in€the€exercise€of€ordinary€care,€the€premises€owner€should€have€known€of€itÏand€taken€action€to€remedy€it.€ÌÌA€premises€owner's€constructive€knowledge€of€a€dangerous€condition€on€the€premisesÏmay€be€established€by€circumstantial€evidence€showing€that:€(1)€the€dangerousÏcondition€existed€for€such€a€length€of€time€that€in€the€exercise€of€ordinary€care,€theÏpremises€owner€should€have€known€of€the€condition;€or€(2)€the€condition€occurred€withÏregularity€and€was€therefore€foreseeable.€In€the€latter€category,€evidence€of€recurring€orÏongoing€problems€that€could€have€resulted€from€operational€negligence€or€negligentÏmaintenance€becomes€relevant€to€the€issue€of€foreseeability€of€a€dangerous€condition.€ÌÌIn€a€premises€liability€case,€the€premises€owner's€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€of€aÏdangerous€condition€on€the€premises€is€irrelevant€in€cases€not€involving€transitory,Ïforeign€substances€(i.e.,€the€typical€banana€peel€case),€if€ample€evidence€of€negligentÏmaintenance€can€be€shown.€In€a€premises€liability€case,€the€premises€owner'sÏconstructive€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition€on€the€premises€may€be€proved,€like€anyÏfact,€by€circumstantial€evidence.€ÌÌOn€a€limited€basis€it€is€recognized€in€premises€liability€cases€that,€by€virtue€of€the€natureÏof€the€business€or€its€mode€of€operation,€the€requirement€of€establishing€the€premisesÏowner's€constructive€knowledge€of€a€specific€dangerous€condition€is€altered€orÏeliminated.€Places€of€amusement€where€large€crowds€congregate€are€required€to€keepÏtheir€premises€in€reasonably€safe€condition€commensurate€with€the€businessÏconducted.€If€the€owner€fails€in€this,€and€such€failure€is€the€proximate€result€of€injury€toÏone€lawfully€on€the€premises,€compensatory€damages€may€be€recovered€if€the€oneÏinjured€is€not€at€fault.€ÌÌOne€operating€a€place€of€amusement€where€others€are€invited€is€charged€with€aÏcontinuous€duty€to€look€after€the€safety€of€his€patrons.€The€òòmode€of€operationóó€theory€ofÐ <"Œ Ðpremises€liability€might€be€applicable€to€a€supermarket€or€grocery€store€where€theÏcreator€of€a€dangerous€condition€would€necessarily€know€about€the€condition€andÏtherefore€be€held€responsible€for€his€or€her€own€creation.€If€the€plaintiff€in€a€premisesÏliability€case€can€convince€a€jury€that€a€dangerous€condition€was€created€by€personsÏconnected€with€the€store€in€which€the€plaintiff's€injury€occurred,€the€matter€of€theÏpremises€owner's€notice€is€inconsequential.€The€evolution€of€modern€merchandiseÏmarketing€techniques,€including€self„service,€has€increased€the€likelihood€of€spills€andÏbreaks€occurring€in€a€store.€A€store€adopting€the€self„service€technique€shouldÏreasonably€anticipate€certain€types€of€accidents€and€therefore€is€already€on€notice€as€toÏthose€accidents.€Because€the€self„service€marketing€technique€allows€for€lowerÏoverhead€and€greater€profits,€the€businesses€that€adopt€the€self„service€technique€areÏin€a€better€position€to€prevent€and€attend€to€the€premises€liability€risks€involved€.It€isÏunfair€to€place€the€burden€on€a€customer€injured€by€a€dangerous€condition€on€aÐ ì-<)+ Ðbusiness€owner's€premises€to€establish€actual€or€constructive€notice€of€the€condition€onÏthe€part€of€the€premises€owner€or€operator€when€the€owner€or€operator€is€in€control€ofÏits€own€premises€and€the€evidence€on€which€notice€is€based.€ÌÌOverall,€in€a€premises€liability€case,€the€fair€probability€is€that€the€premises€owner€didÏless€than€its€duty€demanded,€in€one€respect€or€another.€At€least€the€probability€isÏsufficient€to€permit€such€an€inference€in€the€absence€of€evidence€that€the€premisesÏowner€did€all€that€a€reasonably€prudent€man€would€do€in€the€light€of€the€risk€of€injury€hisÏoperation€entailed.€It€is€just,€therefore,€to€place€the€onus€of€producing€evidence€uponÏthe€party€who€is€possessed€of€superior€knowledge€or€opportunity€for€explanation€of€theÏcausative€circumstances.€òòWhere€a€substantial€risk€of€injury€is€implicit€in€the€manner€inÐ R¢  Ðwhich€a€business€is€conducted,€and€on€the€total€scene€it€is€fairly€probable€that€theÏoperator€is€responsible€either€in€creating€a€hazard€or€permitting€it€to€arise€or€to€continue,Ïit€would€be€unjust€to€saddle€the€customer€with€the€burden€of€isolating€the€precise€failureóó.Ð T  ÐThe€situation€being€peculiarly€in€the€operator's€hands,€it€is€fair€to€call€upon€the€operatorÏto€explain,€if€he€wishes€to€avoid€an€inference€by€the€trier€of€the€facts€that€the€faultÏprobably€was€his.€Numerous€items€displayed€upon€shelving€along€the€aisles€orÏwalkways€in€self„service€stores€entice€the€customers€to€focus€their€eyes€upon€theÏdisplay€rather€than€on€the€surface€upon€which€they€walk.€The€self„service€system€ofÏoperating€a€store€increases€the€risk€of€harm€to€invitees€from€objects€dropped€on€theÏfloor€by€customers€and,€correspondingly,€the€premises€owner's€duty€to€minimize€the€riskÏby€frequent€inspections€and€cleanups.€ÌÌA€plaintiff€establishes€a€prima€facie€case€of€negligence€when€he€presents€evidence€thatÏthe€nature€of€the€defendant's€business€gives€rise€to€a€substantial€risk€of€injury€toÏcustomers€from€slip„and„fall€accident,€and€that€the€plaintiff's€injury€was€proximatelyÏcaused€by€such€an€accident€within€the€zone€of€risk.€It€is€then€incumbent€upon€theÏdefendant€to€produce€evidence€that€it€exercised€reasonable€care€under€theÏcircumstances.€The€ultimate€decision€whether€the€defendant€exercised€such€care€is€toÏbe€made€by€the€finder€of€fact.€In€a€self„service€grocery€operation,€the€easy€access€to€theÏmerchandise€often€results€in€its€spillage€and€breakage.€This,€along€with€the€fact€that€aÏcustomer's€attention€understandably€is€focused€on€the€items€displayed€rather€than€onÏthe€floor,€creates€a€dangerous€condition.€A€proprietor€is€guilty€of€negligence€only€if€heÏfails€to€use€reasonable€care€under€the€circumstances€to€discover€a€foreseeableÏdangerous€condition€and€to€correct€it€or€to€warn€customers€of€its€existence.€However,€itÏis€unrealistic€to€require€the€victim€of€a€fall€resulting€from€a€dangerous€condition€in€a€self„¼service€grocery€store€to€present€evidence€of€the€absence€of€reasonable€care€by€theÏstorekeeper.€The€steps€the€storekeeper€took€to€discover€the€condition€and€to€correct€orÏwarn€of€it€are€peculiarly€within€his€own€knowledge.€ÌÌThe€"mode„of„operation"€rule€looks€to€a€business's€choice€of€a€particular€mode€ofÏoperation€and€not€events€surrounding€a€plaintiff's€accident.€Under€this€rule,€the€plaintiffÏis€not€required€to€prove€a€proprietor's€notice€of€a€dangerous€condition€if€the€proprietorÏcould€reasonably€anticipate€that€hazardous€conditions€would€regularly€arise.€Ð D-”(+ ЇAn€appellate€court€reviewing€the€grant€of€a€directed€verdict€must€view€the€evidence€andÏall€inferences€of€fact€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€nonmoving€party,€and€can€affirm€aÏdirected€verdict€only€where€no€proper€view€of€the€evidence€could€sustain€a€verdict€inÏfavor€of€the€nonmoving€party.€In€a€premises€liability€case,€it€is€unfair€to€place€the€burdenÏon€a€customer€to€establish€actual€or€constructive€notice€on€the€part€of€the€premisesÏowner€who€is€in€control€of€its€own€premises€and€the€evidence€on€which€notice€is€based.€ÌÌFlorida,€like€other€jurisdictions,€recognizes€that€a€legal€duty€will€arise€whenever€a€humanÏendeavor€creates€a€generalized€and€foreseeable€risk€of€harming€others.€It€is€undisputedÏthat€under€Florida€law,€all€premises€owners€owe€a€duty€to€their€invitees€to€exerciseÏreasonable€care€to€maintain€their€premises€in€a€safe€condition.€The€existence€of€aÏtransitory€foreign€substance€on€the€floor€is€not€a€safe€condition.€Modern„dayÏsupermarkets,€self„service€marts,€cafeterias,€fast„food€restaurants€and€other€businessÏpremises€should€be€aware€of€the€potentially€hazardous€conditions€that€arise€from€theÏway€in€which€they€conduct€their€business.€Indeed,€the€very€operation€of€many€of€theseÏtypes€of€establishments€requires€that€the€customers€select€merchandise€directly€fromÏthe€store's€displays,€which€are€arranged€to€invite€customers€to€focus€on€the€displays€andÏnot€on€the€floors.€In€addition,€the€premises€owners€are€in€a€superior€position€to€establishÏthat€they€did€or€did€not€regularly€maintain€the€premises€in€a€safe€condition,€and€they€areÏgenerally€in€a€superior€position€to€ascertain€what€occurred€by€making€an€immediateÏinvestigation,€interviewing€witnesses€and€taking€photographs.€ÌÌPremises€liability€cases€involving€transitory€foreign€substances€are€appropriate€casesÏfor€shifting€the€burden€to€the€premises€owner€or€operator€to€establish€that€it€exercisedÏreasonable€care€under€the€circumstances,€eliminating€the€specific€requirement€that€theÏcustomer€establish€that€the€store€had€constructive€knowledge€of€its€existence€in€orderÏfor€the€case€to€be€presented€to€the€jury.€ÌÌñ ñòòñ ñThe€existence€of€a€foreign€substance€on€the€floor€of€a€business€premises€that€causes€aÐ Ê Ðcustomer€to€fall€and€be€injured€is€not€a€safe€condition,€and€the€existence€of€that€unsafeÏcondition€creates€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€the€premises€owner€did€not€maintainÏthe€premises€in€a€reasonably€safe€conditionñ ñóóñ ñ.€Once€a€plaintiff€establishes€that€he€or€sheÐ |"Ì Ðfell€in€a€business€owner's€premises€as€a€result€of€a€transitory€foreign€substance,€aÏrebuttable€presumption€of€negligence€arises.€At€that€point,€ñ ñòòñ ñthe€burden€shifts€to€theÐ H$˜! Ðbusiness€owner€to€show€by€the€greater€weight€of€evidence€that€it€exercised€reasonableÏcare€in€the€maintenance€of€the€premises€under€the€circumstancesñ ñóóñ ñ.€The€circumstancesÐ &d!# Ðmay€include€the€nature€of€the€specific€hazard€and€the€nature€of€the€owner's€business.ÏÝ‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝóóÔÿÔFla.€Stat.€ch.€90.304€provides€that€in€civil€actions,€all€rebuttable€presumptions€which€areÐ à'0#% Ðnot€defined€in€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝóóÔÿÔFla.€Stat.€ch.€90.303€are€presumptions€affecting€the€burden€of€proof.Ð Æ($& ÐPursuant€to€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝóóÔÿÔFla.€Stat.€ch.€90.302(2),€a€presumption€affecting€the€burden€of€proofÐ ¬)ü$' Ðimposes€upon€the€party€against€whom€it€operates€the€burden€of€proof€concerning€theÏnonexistence€of€the€presumed€fact.€Thus,€when€evidence€rebutting€such€a€presumptionÏis€introduced,€the€presumption€does€not€automatically€disappear.€It€is€not€overcomeÏuntil€the€trier€of€fact€believes€that€the€presumed€fact€has€been€overcome€by€whateverÐ D-”(+ Ðdegree€of€persuasion€is€required€by€the€substantive€law€of€the€case.ñ ñÌÌñ ññ ñ€ñ ñBurden„shifting€in€premises€liability€cases,€requiring€a€premises€owner€to€show€itÏexercised€reasonable€care€in€the€maintenance€of€the€premises,€does€not€eliminate€aÏplaintiff's€burden€of€proving€that€a€slip€and€fall€accident€on€the€owner's€premises€was€theÏcause€of€the€plaintiff's€injuries.€Premises€owners€or€operators€are€not€strictly€liable€forÏthe€injury.€The€ultimate€question€for€the€jury€is€whether€the€premises€owner€or€operatorÏexercised€reasonable€care€in€maintaining€its€premises€in€a€safe€condition.€TheÏcontinued€viability€of€the€mode€of€operation€theory€of€premises€liability€is€recognized.€IfÏthe€evidence€establishes€a€specific€negligent€mode€of€operation€such€that€a€premisesÏowner€could€reasonably€anticipate€that€dangerous€conditions€would€arise€as€a€result€ofÏits€mode€of€operation,€then€whether€the€owner€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€ofÏthe€specific€transitory€foreign€substance€causing€an€injury€is€not€an€issue.€ñ ñÌÌñ ñThe€dispositive€issue€is€whether€the€specific€method€of€operation€was€negligent€andÏwhether€the€accident€occurred€as€a€result€of€that€negligence.€To€the€extent€that€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔÿÔòòRowe€v.Ð vÆ ÐWinn„Dixie€Storesóóóó,€Inc.,€714€So.€2d€1180€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1998),€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔÿÔòòSchapp€v.€PublixÐ ^® ÐSupermarkets,€Inc.óóóó,€579€So.€2d€831€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1991),€and€Ý‚ÿÿÿÝÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔÿÔòòPublix€Super€Market,€Inc.Ð F– Ðv.€Sanchezóóóó,€700€So.€2d€405€(Fla.€1st€DCA€1997),€reject€or€limit€the€application€of€theÐ .~ Ðmode€of€operation€theory€in€premises€liability€cases,€they€were€disapproved.€ÌÐ ÐÐ ÐÝ‚'ÿÿÿÝò òÝ  ÝÔ% ‡2 Ôó óÝ‚'ÿ0>ƒÝññó óñññ ñó óó óó óñ ññ ñó óó óó óñ ññ ñó óó óñ ññ ñó óñ ñÝ  ÝÝ‚'ÿÿÿÝò òÝ  ÝÔ%†2N>Ôó óÝ‚'ÿÑ>ƒÝññó óñññ ñó óó óó óñ ññ ñó óó óó óñ ññ ñó óó óñ ññ ñó óñ ñÝ  ÝÓ 1[SÓÌò òEmployment/Labor/Americans€with€Disabilities€Actó óÐ Q ÐÌIn€reversing€the€decision€in€òòòòToyota€Motor€Mfg.€Ky.,€Inc.€v.€Williamsóóóó,€218€F.3d€609€(6òòthóóÐ Ó# ÐCir.€2000),€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€sufferer€of€carpal€tunnel€syndrome€was€notÏð ðsubstantially€limitedðð€as€required€by€the€ADA.€Under€the€ADA€the€central€inquiry€forÏqualification€was€not€whether€the€claimant€is€unable€to€perform€the€tasks€associatedÏwith€her€particular€job,€but€rather€whether€she€is€unable€to€perform€a€variety€of€tasksÏcentral€to€most€peopleððs€lives.€€This€ruling€strikes€a€clear€blow€to€claims€focusing€onÏparticular€workplace€limitations€or€a€class€of€limitations,€recognizing€a€demandingÏstandard€for€qualifying€as€disabled,€particularly€where€the€claimant€could€perform€aÏvariety€of€every€day€manual€tasks.€534€U.S.€184,€151€L.Ed.2d€615,€122€S.Ct€681Ï(November€15,€2001)ÌÌÌò òEmployment/Arbitrationó óÐ 'í"% ÐÌòòòòEEOC€€v.€Waffle€House,€Inc.óóóó,€122€S.€Ct€754€(2002).Ð o)¿$' ÐÌThe€Supreme€Court€ruled€that€an€arbitration€agreement€between€employer€andÏemployee€does€not€prevent€the€EEOC€from€pursuing€victim„specific€judicial€relief€in€anÏADA€case.€In€other€words,€the€arbitration€agreement€was€not€binding€on€the€EEOC€asÏto€the€forum€and€mode€of€relief€it€could€seek.€Ð ï-?), ЇÌÔ‡ÂÔÂXXOìÔÔ.`ƒ PF:\web page\case-law-updates\3-21-02.wpd`ÔF:\web€page\case-law-updates\3-21-02.wpdÔ/  ÔÔ#†XOìXÂÂÔßD#Ô