As a plaintiff in a Kohls lawsuit, you are entitled to a fair and accurate account of your claim with respect to the scope of the negligence on the part of Kohls as reflected in its policies. A fair claim requires a reasonable settlement of the underlying claim. Consumer and Business litigation lawyers at Kohls, P.C., are experts in handling such cases. They know all the rules and regulations that govern these lawsuits and how to apply them to your situation. So, if you are finding yourself in a similar situation, consulting a lawyer is definitely the way to go.
Kohls Lawsuit
Under the provisions of the Residential Cleaning & Janitorial Practices Act (RCPDA) all businesses with a direct business relationship with consumers are required to have proper policies and procedures in place for limiting the exposure of customers to potential hazards or dangers of a consumer product or service.
The CPDA also requires that the company has a properly established and enforced process for responding to complaints by customers, which can be described in a legal document known as a “complaint.” In short, if a business responds to a complaint properly and promptly, it is not liable for any alleged defect or breach of warranty in a consumer product or service.
Kohls & Co., a self-storage and warehouse facility owned by Kohls Limited, is one of the numerous businesses that fall within the purview of the RCPDA.
According to the Complaint, one night in August of last year, an intoxicated and frustrated female tenant brought to the attention of one of the self-storage managers an issue regarding her restroom usage. This unhappy customer was told that she could not use the restrooms at her current location due to some pending problems with her personal belongings.
She further stated that she felt that she had a right to use the restroom as she was a guest in the home and that the home owner’s policy did not allow for her to remain there while she was in the premise.
Subsequently, the self-storage manager informed this upset and distraught female tenant that he would be sending out maintenance personnel to assist in dealing with her problem.
Several weeks later, this female tenant again brought this issue to the attention of the self-storage management and made yet another complaint to this same manager. The following day, this unhappy customer was told by the manager that the previously mentioned female guest had been removed from the premises and that a new tenant would be assigned to her spot.
On its face, this situation appears to be a straightforward case of a business being responsible for negligence by exercising reasonable care in the conduct of its business dealings with its customers.
Yet, when this case reached the jury in a court of law, the judge found otherwise. The court found that there existed a broader understanding of what was meant by a “duty” than the one described in the rental agreement between the parties.
It also found that this duty existed because of the existence of an implied contractual relationship between the parties that required both parties to act in a reasonable manner towards one another. Therefore, Kohls was held liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in selecting this particular tenant.
While Kohls may not be guilty of this particular breach of its duty, it certainly did fail to act in a reasonable manner with regard to this one bad apple, as evidenced by the fact that the company chose not to contact this upset tenant prior to her eviction.
Simply put, Kohls was not liable for this female tenant’s complaint because this one bad apple did in fact affect the way that Kohls operated. Had this female tenant been a different customer, one would have been different; however, the way that she and Kohls worked together made this one bad apple into a huge problem. For all of these reasons, this negligence by Kohls and its reliance on the rental agreement to avoid dealing with unhappy customers creates a problematic situation for every business owner.
