Discuss why it is a question of fact, whether the store acted as a reasonable store shouldDiscuss why it is a question of law whether the store acted reasonably.

It is not always easy to know when something is a question of fact or a question of law. In fact, there have been cases when the issue on appeal was whether something was a question of fact or a question of law. That question is itself a question of law. To see how that can happen, assume that there was a negligence trial in which a grocer was sued when a customer slipped and fell. The customer testified that she slipped on a banana peel in the produce section. The grocery store owner testified that when he came to the assistance of the customer, there was no peel on the floor. One of the store employees also testified that he had mopped the floor in that area just five minutes before the accident and that there were no banana peels on the floor. Nonetheless, the jury found the store liable. Can the store appeal on the grounds that it was telling the truth and the customer was lying? No. Why? Because that is a question of fact, and factual determinations generally cannot be appealed. Can the store appeal on the grounds that the jury should not have found it acted negligently because even if there was a banana peel, such hazards are to be expected in the produce section and the store had done all it could to make the area safe? You will discuss both sides of the issue of whether the store acted reasonable is a question of fact or question of law