Hot dog leads to suit

December 4, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A woman slipped in a Connersville Speedway gas station, so of course, she’s filed a lawsuit. The gas station should have known better than to leave a hot dog on the floor.

According to a lawsuit filed in Indianapolis this week in federal court, Mary Stenger believes Speedway “failed to warn of the dangerous condition created by the hot dog on the floor.” She visited the gas station in March with her husband and while walking in, slipped on the hot dog and fell.

The suit doesn’t say whether it was a jumbo frank or regular dog, or whether it was plain or had slippery condiments on it like mustard or relish. It also doesn’t say how old Mrs. Stenger is, so perhaps her fall did seriously injure her. Again, scant on details, but apparently she’s suffering from bodily disfigurement, and possible permanent physical and emotional injuries. Could her mental suffering be embarrassment because you have to tell people you slipped on a hot dog?

Businesses have a duty to protect their customers, thus things like the yellow “caution” signs are used when they mop the floor. If this had been a slick floor, I’d probably have more sympathy because it’s easy to not see water on the ground. But how can you miss spotting a hog dog on the ground, and when you step on it, how do you fall instead of just smooshing it? The suit doesn’t say that she was physically or visually impaired at the time of the accident.

Her husband is also a part of the suit because he’s lost the care, society, companionship, support, and service of his spouse.

And is it just me, or is it ironic that the firm representing Mrs. Stenger is Craig, Kelley & Faultless and her attorney is Scott Faultless? The suit says Speedway should have seen the hot dog and known someone would trip on it, and the gas station should have expected she wouldn’t realize there was a hot dog on the floor and wouldn’t protect herself against it.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I know I am late on this comment, but I have to think you have not frequented some of the Speedway stations I have seen. Yes, it is possible for an able-bodied person to slip and be seriously injured. It is also possible that the hot dog was already smooshed leaving a large greasy area. Why assume that the defendant and attorney are exaggerating?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT