of the twenty-seven years and the knowledge and experience of 7-11 as pointed out by its Loss Prevention Manager are two factors which make this case different from Schatz. The foreseeability issue is more clear here; it is certainly a question for the jury in this case. Id. Specifically, “[t]he absence of a history of similar accidents does not necessarily relieve a defendant business of a duty to erect bumpers, guardrails, or warning signs. The defendant business may have constructive knowledge of similar accidents at other similar locations. Constructive knowledge of these accidents may be sufficient to establish foreseeability.” Springtree Props. v. Hammond, 692 So.2d 164, 168 (Fla.1997); see also Dalmo Sales of Wheaton, Inc. v. Steinberg, 43 Md.App. 659, 687, 407 A.2d 339 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I would find that issues of fact
holding that testimony that safetyoriented practice among traffic engineers of designing park ing lots so as to avoid encroachment on adjacent sidewalks was common and fundamental raised fact issue that could enable an ordinarily intelligent mind to draw a rational conclusion therefrom in support of the right of the plaintiff to recover holding that the right to vote is fundamental holding right to be fundamental holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right holding that where an issue is raised in the district court but raised late and the district court declines to deem the issue waived the issue may be raised on appeal