Mayo v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a company's internal safety policies may serve as evidence relevant to standard of care but do not themselves establish that standard
• recognizing that “safety rules and procedures established by a party to govern the conduct of its employees are relevant evidence of the standard of care”
• “a party’s internal rule does not itself fix the legal standard of care in a negligence action”
• “We clarify that a party’s own internal operating manuals are admissible if relevant to the issues raised. We reiterate, however . . . that a party’s internal rule does not itself fix the legal standard of care in a negligence action[.]”
• “We clarify that a party’s own internal operating manuals are admissible if relevant to the issues raised. We reiterate, however . . . that a party’s internal rule does not itself fix the legal standard of care in a negligence action[.]”
• “We clarify that a party’s own internal operating manuals are admissible if relevant to the issues raised. We reiterate, however . . . that a party’s internal rule does not itself fix the legal standard of care in a negligence action[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).