Archive for the ‘Convention’ Category

Out of Control? – Woman Injured by Display at Conference Wins Jury Verdict; Evidence Properly Excluded at Trial (MO)

September 1, 2015

Medley v. Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. (Missouri)

The plaintiff attended a conference that was hosted by the defendant, and she was injured when she tripped over a window display set up in a boutique vendor area at the conference.  Plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for premises liability, alleging (1) that she was an invitee of the defendant, (2) the defendant controlled (or had the right to control) the boutique area that included the display, (3) the defendant negligently placed the window display in a crowded and congested area, and (4) plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence.

During trial, the defendant attempted to introduce documentary evidence, including a license agreement, between the defendant and the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission (“CVC”) showing CVC’s involvement in the conference.  Plaintiff objected to the evidence  as irrelevant, and the trial court sustained the objections.  Defendant also sought to introduce witness testimony about CVC’s involvement in the conference and CVC’s relationship with the defendant.  However, the trial court held: “(1) there was no evidence to suggest that Defendant was not in possession of the premises where Plaintiff’s injury occurred; (2) the only relevant relationship in the case was the relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant; and (3) the evidence presented by Defendant in its offer of proof was not relevant.”  Thereafter, the defendant sought the introduction of a jury instruction that stated: “Your verdict must be for [D]efendant if you believe that [D]efendant was not in possession or control of the premises.” However, the trial court refused to submit the instruction.

Upon the conclusion of the trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that plaintiff’s total damages were $400,000.  The verdict assessed defendant seventy percent at fault and plaintiff thirty percent at fault, thereby awarding plaintiff $280,000 in damages.  The court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, and defendant filed a motion for a new trial.  The motion was denied, and the defendant appealed. (more…)

What a Show

August 15, 2012

Metsker v. Carefree/Scott Fetzer Company (Florida)
(A guest at a recreational vehicle [“RV”] trade show was struck by a pole in a booth for the manufacturer of RV awnings, and he sued both the manufacture and the RV trade association;  the trial court granted the manufacturer’s summary judgment motion by the Court of Appeal reversed finding triable issues of fact.)

The show in question featured displays of RV vehicles and related accessories and services. The plaintiff paid a fee to enter the show.  While he was seated in the defendant manufacturer’s booth a metal pole fell and struck him.  After plaintiff filed his complaint, the manufacturer filed its motion for summary judgment claiming that while it had rented the booth for display, it “did not construct, control, or operate” the booth.  Rather, it had independently contracted with a third party for those booth services.  As such, the manufacturer claimed it did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care.  The trial court agreed, granting the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Court explained that with regard to premises liability, “the issue of whether a party has a duty of care does not depend on ownership or title to the premises.  Instead, the appropriate inquiry is whether the party has the ability to exercise control over the premises.”  The Court further noted that “[t]wo or more parties may share control over land or business premises,” and as a result, liability “may rest upon more than one party.”

(more…)