123 results for 'cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"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
J. Moorer grants, in part, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment in a customer’s slip-and-fall lawsuit. She argues that Walmart’s employees should have discovered the produce bag she slipped on, as it was a hazard on the premises. She gives up her wantonness and negligent hiring claims, so Walmart wins summary judgement on them. Only her negligence remains, as well as her husband’s loss of consortium claim.
Court: USDC Southern District of Alabama, Judge: Moorer, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv391, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, negligence, premises Liability
Per curiam, the circuit finds the district court properly found for a casino owner on a casino patron allegations that while she was playing a slot machine, she was hit by a casino-owned motorized scooter operated by another patron who had rented it. Resolution of the claimant's issues, including whether the owner rented the scooter or owed a duty of care, would not affect the outcome. No evidence of any factual dispute has been offered. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 23-60499, Categories: negligence, premises Liability
J. Eisnaugle finds the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Walmart in a lawsuit it faces from a consumer who was injured when shoplifters struck him with their car while fleeing store employees who were trying to take pictures of their license plate. The employees' actions after the shoplifters fled, including chasing after them and calling for police, did not negligently escalate the situation and create a "zone of risk," and Walmart's internal policies and procedures are not important to the legal analysis at play. Walmart had no legal duty to protect the consumer from fleeing shoplifters. Affirmed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Eisnaugle, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 23-0201, Categories: negligence, 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. Stagel improperly granted a patron final judgment in this negligent security arising from a shooting at a strip club. The property owner and his corporate entity argues they lacked control over the premises since it is leased to another business to establish duty of care. Based on evidence the owner and his entity did not maintain control over the premises and should have had entry of direct verdict. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Stagel, Filed On: April 4, 2024, Case #: 6D23-1205, Categories: negligence, premises Liability
J. Wiley finds that the trial court properly granted summary judgment to a hotel on a guest's negligence claim for cuts caused when a handheld shower wand broke. The guest failed to establish that the hotel was on notice that the shower wand was broken, and her expert's declaration had speculative conclusions that lacked foundation. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Viramontes, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: B320603, Categories: negligence, Experts, premises Liability
J. Eagles grants a hotel’s motion to dismiss personal injury claims brought by a guest after she slipped on water and broke her hip. The guest had reported to staff that water was collecting under the air conditioning unit in her room, but they failed to fix the unit. At night, the guest got up and slipped on the water, breaking her hip. As the injury happened on St. Maarten, and the parties agreed to litigate in St. Maarten, this court lacks jurisdiction over the action.
Court: USDC Middle District of North Carolina, Judge: Eagles, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1048, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: negligence, Jurisdiction, premises Liability
Per curiam, the Michigan Supreme Court finds that a landowner was not liable for the death of a 12-year-old girl who had been riding an off-road vehicle on his property because the mother's owner liability claim was precluded by the Michigan Recreational Land Use Act, and the record did not support a finding that the landowner was grossly negligent with regard to the death. Affirmed.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 164190, Categories: negligence, 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. Winchester finds the court of civil appeals improperly reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the swimming pool owner. The mother seeks recovery from her child's drowning by a fall into her neighbor's pool. Though the trial court found the owner to have no duty of care, the appeals court concluded the question of whether or not the swimming pool was an attractive nuisance was for the jury to decide. The swimming pool is not defined as an attractive nuisance being there was no hidden or unusual element of danger in or near it. A genuine issue of material fact remains, though, as to whether the owner breached a duty owed under premises liability. Vacated.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court, Judge: Winchester, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 119,569, Categories: negligence, Wrongful Death, 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. Bennett finds the lower court properly granted summary judgment to a company that operated a prison and denied a request for sanctions in this premises liability matter. A woman sued the prison operator after she was allegedly injured after a chair in which she was sitting while visiting her son collapsed beneath her. The lower court found the visitor failed to present evidence to show that the chair was defective, that there was a dangerous condition, or that the prison operator had knowledge or notice of the alleged dangerous condition. While the visitor requested sanctions against the prison operator for failing to preserve evidence, the lower court declined the request finding there was no indication after the incident that evidence would need to be preserved as the visitor indicated she was fine and declined all offers of assistance by prison personnel. The instant court finds no error in the lower court’s findings. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: Bennett, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: M2023-00424-COA-R3-CV, Categories: Sanctions, 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. Baldwin denies Union Pacific's motion to exclude improperly obtained photos. The switchman who was injured after slipping on debris while attempting to board a moving train brings this negligence claim for Union Pacific's alleged failure to provide clear walkways. Though the photos were obtained outside the discovery process, the switchman's attorneys acted in good faith when entering a facility to get them. Inclusion of the photos will not be detrimental to a fair and orderly trial.
Court: USDC Nevada, Judge: Baldwin , Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv479, NOS: Federal Employers’ Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Employment, negligence, premises Liability
J. McFadden finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the nightclub's landlord and two property management companies in a negligence action brought by the customer arising from injuries he suffered when the nightclub's security guard threw him to the ground. The trial court correctly found that the landlord was an out-of-possession landlord that cannot be held liable under the statute. The nightclub was responsible for the premises under the terms of the lease and the property management companies had no legal duty to the customer. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: McFadden, Filed On: February 22, 2024, Case #: A23A1528, Categories: negligence, premises Liability