11 results for 'cat:"Evidence" AND cat:"Negligence" AND cat:"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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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
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