26 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Premises Liability"'.
J. Clement upholds the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the city in this personal injury case brought by a resident alleging he was injured after slipping and falling off the city-owned pool’s diving board. The city claimed immunity from liability under the Tennessee Recreational Use Statute as an affirmative defense. The resident and his wife did not imply any exceptions or limitations for their negligence claims under the statute. Swimming and diving are a recreational activity, and the city pool is considered “land” or “premises” under the statute. Therefore, the city is entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Clement, Filed On: May 14, 2024, Case #: M2023-00654-COA-R3-CV, Categories: evidence, Immunity, premises Liability
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
Per curiam, the Texas Supreme Court finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled against Randalls in a premises liability case filed by a shopper alleging that the store should be held liable for her fall next to a grocery cart she claims was leaking its contents. The jury found that the grocery store chain did not have any constructive knowledge of the cart. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the jury should have also answered the question regarding whether Randalls had actual knowledge of the court. However, "since there is no evidence of actual knowledge of the danger, no reasonable jury could have answered the actual-knowledge question" in the shopper's favor. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 5, 2024, Case #: 23-0041, Categories: evidence, Jury, premises Liability
J. Graves finds the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Michaels. The customer brought this negligence suit after slipping and falling inside the store on a rainy day. The customer's declaration, photos, testimony, as well as a security video not showing the area where the customer slipped, did not create a genuine dispute of material fact as to notice. A statement recounted by the customer from an unidentified staff member regarding how the staff had been mopping up water all day is hearsay. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Graves , Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 23-30393, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Underhill grants Walmart's motion for summary judgment, ruling that although it had an easement and paid for maintenance expenses on the parking lot where the pothole was located, it was not the owner of the property and, therefore, cannot be held liable for the shopper's injuries.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Underhill, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv408, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, premises Liability
J. England grants, in part, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment in this slip-and-fall case brought by a customer claiming of negligence and wantonness. The customer argues that Walmart the broken tile should have been discovered by employees as it was part of the premises creating a hazard. Her testimony and evidence support the defect, the piece of tile was present and the reason for her fall. Therefore, the wantonness claim is dismissed and the remaining claim for negligence is denied. The parties are ordered to confer and file a joint status report regarding the next steps.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: England, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv643, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Manasco grants a mortgage company’s motion for summary judgment in this personal injury lawsuit brought by a couple after the husband was injured when the brick on the stairs collapsed, causing him to fall and land on a stake sticking up out of the ground. The couple claims negligence, wantonness and loss of consortium, but lack enough evidence of the mortgagor’s culpable knowledge on any of those claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Manasco, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv1417, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Stafford finds the lower court properly found in favor of a store in a premises liability matter. A customer fell as she entered the store, breaking her hip. It was raining and store personnel placed a mat and wet floor sign at the store entrance. Video surveillance footage showed the customer shuffle across the mat and fall. The customer's original complaint alleged she slipped on the wet floor, but the store argued that she tripped over her own feet as she shuffled across the mat; the customer amended her complaint to claim the wet mat caused the fall. The lower court found the customer presented no evidence that the mat caused the fall and that her original claim was unsupported as video evidence showed she fell while on the mat, never having an opportunity to slip on the floor. On appeal, the customer argues the lower court erred in its decision because it did not view the full video surveillance video, but the lower court informed the parties it was unable to due to technical difficulty, and the customer failed to object, thereby waiving her argument. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Stafford, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: E2023-00702-COA-R3-CV, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Nugent grants Target's motion for summary judgment, ruling there is no evidence any store employee knew the dock plate was wet or slippery when the truck driver made the delivery or that the plate was wet at all. Furthermore, considering the driver finished unloading his delivery without checking or wiping the dock plate down, he cannot prove his claim the store made an unreasonably safe condition that led to his fall.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Nugent, Filed On: March 5, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv328, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Boyd finds that the court of appeals improperly ruled in favor of the heirs of a driver who was killed when he failed to yield to an oncoming Union Pacific train. A “prudent driver” would have followed posted traffic signs as well as yielded to an oncoming train. Reversed.
Court: Texas Supreme Court, Judge: Boyd, Filed On: February 23, 2024, Case #: 22-0431, Categories: evidence, Tort, premises Liability
J. Kilbane finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart in the customer's slip-and-fall lawsuit. Given the evidence in the record, including testimony from a Walmart employee saying he believed the clear liquid had been on the floor less than 10 minutes when the consumer slipped on it and video footage showing multiple other customers walking through the same area without incident during the roughly nine minutes before the customer slipped, the customer has failed to show Walmart had constructive notice of the issue. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Kilbane, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: 22-2281, Categories: evidence, premises Liability
J. Chasanow denies a customer’s motion to remand this premises liability dispute against Walmart, two individual employees and three shopping cart companies. The customer was pushing a shopping cart out of Walmart when suddenly it broke and caused her injuries. The customer fails to establish a claim against the employees because they were fraudulently joined. Therefore, the customer’s amended complaint is dismissed in favor of Walmart, two individual employees and three shopping cart companies.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Chasanow, Filed On: January 29, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv3133, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Fallon denies summary judgment to both Dollar General and a shopper suing the chain store on a premises liability claim. The woman fell on her knees at the entrance of the store after getting her shoe caught on a large, ripped mat. The circumstances of the case make the question of premises liability “factually fraught.” There are only two witnesses, the alleged victim and a store employee, which indicates that credibility determinations will play a role in evaluating both fault and comparative fault. A reasonable jury could foreseeably find for either or both litigants comparatively. Therefore, both requests for summary judgment are denied.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Fallon, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv822, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Jury, premises Liability
J. Ashe denies summary judgment to Walmart in a slip-and-fall suit by a customer who says she fell in water that accumulated near a laundry detergent aisle from a leaking roof, resulting in injuries to her neck, spine and side. The evidence shows that Walmart knew the roof was leaking but allowed customers into the store without warning of potentially wet floors. With this evidence, a reasonable jury could find that the shopper slipped on water from a roof leak and that Walmart created the condition.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Louisiana , Judge: Ashe, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv210, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, evidence, premises Liability
J. Dennis finds the district court improperly entered summary judgment in favor of Walmart in this slip-and-fall suit. Though the district court found that the customer did not show evidence that Walmart had constructive notice of the puddle she slipped in, she has presented evidence that an employee was actually notified of it by another customer. This creates a genuine issue of material fact. Reversed and remanded.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Dennis, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 22-30309, Categories: evidence, Tort, premises Liability
J. Underhill denies the department store's motion for summary judgment, ruling that disputes of fact regarding whether a t-shaped metal hook on the floor caused the shopper to fall must be decided by a jury. Furthermore, surveillance footage that showed the hook was there for at least an hour prior to the accident would allow a reasonable jury to determine the store had notice of the condition and should have picked up the hook.
Court: USDC Connecticut, Judge: Underhill, Filed On: August 16, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv1733, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
J. Osowik finds the lower court properly granted the home furnishings store's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The injured shopper provided no evidence any of the shelving units she claimed fell and injured her were unlocked or otherwise improperly constructed at the time of the accident. In any case, even if the shelving units had been unlocked, the shopper presents no direct evidence an employee of the store was the one who improperly constructed them. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Osowik, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-2798, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the district court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart in this premises liability suit brought by a shopper who was struck by a falling box of notebooks. The shopper did not notify store management after the incident, but later complained of neck pains and was encouraged by her husband to seek medical attention and file suit. The shopper did not provide sufficient evidence to establish premises liability. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: July 20, 2023, Case #: 22-60269, Categories: evidence, Tort, premises Liability
J. Maxwell finds the lower court improperly denied a store’s motion for summary judgment in this negligence claim. A customer allegedly slipped and fell within a minute of entering the store, sustaining injury. The customer did not know what caused the slip, and did not see any hazard before, during, or after the incident. The store employee who took the incident report amended it the following day to show that carpet freshening powder had been the culprit, and that it was cleaned up after the customer reported the fall. The customer presented no evidence that indicated when or how the spill occurred, nor did she present evidence to show the store was negligent, or had knowledge of the spill for any length of time and failed to take action. Reversed.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court, Judge: Maxwell, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 2022-IA-01054-SCT, Categories: evidence, Negligence, premises Liability