Archive for the ‘Slip/Trip and Fall’ Category

Free of Charge – City Immune Under Statute From Premises Liability Claim by Injured Youth Football Spectator (ID)

November 10, 2015

Hayes v, City of Plummer (Idaho)

The plaintiff was a spectator attending a youth tackle football game at a park owned by the defendant City of Plummer.  He was seriously injured after stumbling on uneven ground hidden by grass, and he filed a premises liability claim against the defendant for his injuries.  The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment based on Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute.  The trial court granted the City’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal. the Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the trial court’s decision.  Under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, “[a] ‘landowner’ who provides property for public recreational use is afforded a limitation of liability and ‘owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.'”  This liability limitation applies when the property is offered “without charge.”  The plaintiff asserted that the school district’s payment of utilities and other expenses related to the park for the benefit of the defendant should be considered a “charge” such that the liability immunity did not apply.  However, the Court disagreed, explaining:

“The intent and purpose of Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute is to provide recreational access at no cost to the general public. I.C. § 36–1604(a) . In this case, the City and the School District have done that by allocating resources in order to provide and maintain the Park for all to enjoy. Because the City did not charge or receive compensation from [plaintiff] or the public for their use and enjoyment of the land, Idaho Code section 36–1604  provides a limitation on liability for [plaintiff’s] injuries. The district court properly granted summary judgment.”

Advertisements

Pass Interference – Woman Injured Chasing Frisbee Thrown From Stage; Claims Barred as a Matter of Law (MN)

November 2, 2015

Strelow v. Winona Steamboat Days Festival Association (Minnesota)
(not published)

Plaintiff attended a festival organized by the defendant.  During a break in the music, representatives from a local radio station went on stage and began throwing t-shirts and Frisbees from the stage.  The Frisbees had tickets to the local zoo attached to them.  Plaintiff gestured as if she wanted to catch a Frisbee and one of the people on stage threw one in her direction, but it veered off course.  Plaintiff took took four to six steps diagonally and slightly backwards with her arms in the air, trying to catch it.  However, plaintiff fell down, rolled against a curb, and fractured her shoulder.

Plaintiff and her husband filed a lawsuit against the defendant event organizer, alleging that defendant failed to maintain a safe area and failed to warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition on the premises.  Plaintiff contended that she fell as a result of tripping on electrical cords that were “black and rubbery” and “bigger than extension cords.”  She indicated that she did not know whether they were connected to anything, she said she did not see them before she fell, and she had not previously walked in the area of the incident.  Plaintiff was unable to find any witnesses to her fall.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting (1) no evidence of a dangerous condition caused by defendant existed, (2) any alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, (3) the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty because it had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition, and (4) plaintiff’s claims were barred by primary assumption of risk.  The trial court granted defendant’s motion, finding that plaintiff “failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence because no evidence was presented that any cords ran over the blacktop” in the area of the incident.  Plaintiff appealed.

(more…)

“Baled” Out – Woman Trips on Stairs at Farm; Indemnity Agreement in Release Contrary to Public Policy (CT)

September 2, 2015

Squinobal v. Zenko (Connecticut)

Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on wooden stairs located on the defendant’s premises.  The defendant operated a farm and equestrian facility.  At the time of the incident, plaintiff was carrying a bale of hay and seed to a feed trailer.  Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that her injuries resulted from the negligence and carelessness of the defendant.  The defendant filed a counterclaim based on a “Lesson, Horse Rental, and Arena Use Release” document (“Release”) signed by the plaintiff in order to ride horses at the facility.  The defendant then filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had a duty to defend and indemnify the defendant under the terms of the Release. (more…)

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…)

A Trip to the Festival – Woman Injured from Exposed Pipe on Unpaved Walkway to a Parking Lot; Issues of Fact for the Jury (FL)

August 21, 2015

Cook v. Bay Area Renaissance Festival of Largo, Inc. (Florida)

Plaintiff attended a festival organized by the defendant, and she tripped and fell over an exposed pipe on an unpaved walkway connecting the festival grounds to an overflow parking lot.  Plaintiff filed an action action against the organizer, contending that it negligently maintained the property where the incident occurred.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no proof that it had control over the premises where the incident occurred.  Although plaintiff was directed by festival volunteers to park in the overflow parking, there was conflicting testimony concerning whether the volunteers directed her to use the unpaved walkway.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed the decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  First, the Court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the organizer had exercised control of the unpaved area.  The Court stated “[a] party ‘who assumes control over the premises in question, no matter under what guise, assumes also the duty to keep them in repair.'”  The defendant was clearly using the overflow parking, and there was conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant intended its invitees to use the unpaved walkway.  The Court also noted that the evidence showed that the defendant took action to remove the pipe from the area after the incident.  Such evidence suggested the defendant’s control over the premises.

Second, the Court held there was also a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the pipe was a dangerous condition, and whether warnings from the plaintiff’s husband and other attendees were sufficient to absolve the defendant from liability.  The defendant argued that the pipe was “open and obvious,” such that it did not owe her a duty to warn her about the hazard.  However, the Court explained that “even when a hazard is open and obvious, a landowner or possessor can still be held liable for failing ‘to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury’ to invitees.”

 

Imperfect Storm – Hockey Arena Snow Remover Not Liable for Slip and Fall Injury During Storm (NY)

August 17, 2015

Harvey v. LAZ Parking Ltd. (New York)

A hockey fan slipped and fell on an icy pedestrian area while exiting a hockey arena.  He filed a lawsuit against the city and its snow removal contractor.  The fan’s wife also filed a claim for loss of consortium.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision, holding that the defendants were not liable pursuant to the “storm in progress rule.”  According to the rule, “[a] landowner has no duty to remedy a dangerous condition resulting from a storm while the storm is in progress and has a reasonable amount of time after the storm has ended to take corrective action.”  The defendants relied on plaintiffs’ own testimony that there was precipitation during and after the game, and they also relied on weather data and climatological records establishing the timing of the precipitation.  The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that the ice was formed by the ongoing weather conditions.  Once established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to produce  “admissible evidence that the ice that caused plaintiff’s slip and fall existed prior to the storm in progress, and that defendant[s] had actual or constructive notice of the hazard.”  The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s expert affidavit failed to meet that burden.

Don’t Believe the Type – No Liability Coverage for Event Production Company Despite Contrary Insurance Certificate (LA)

August 4, 2015

Daniels v. SMG Crystal, LLC (Louisiana)

This case revolves around the 2005 Essence Festival held at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans. An attendee of the event slipped and fell on an unknown substance at the Superdome, suffering personal injury.  She filed a lawsuit against government entities, the Superdome manager, the festival organizer, and a production company hired by the organizer to produce the festival.  The government entities and the Superdome manager filed cross-complaints against the festival organizer and the production company seeking defense and indemnity protection.  The organizer filed a cross complaint against the production company and its commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurer.  The insurer eventually filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify any of the parties under the CGL policy.  The District Court initially denied the motion, but later granted the insurer’s motion for a new trial and for summary judgment.  Appeals followed.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana vacated the District Court decision and remanded the matter.  On remand, the District Court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment against the injured attendee and the production company on the issue of insurance coverage, and it dismissed all the claims against the insurer.  The production company appealed again. (more…)

Low Marks from the U.S.A. Judge – Claims of Fallen Ice Skater Denied (DE)

July 20, 2015

Paveza v. The Pond, Inc. (Delaware)

Plaintiff and her daughter were participating an “open skate” at the ice skating rink operated by the defendant.  Plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on debris while she was skating.  In her lawsuit, plaintiff claimed that the defendants negligently failed to remove the debris which caused her to fall and failed to warn her about the debris.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment contending that it did not owe plaintiff a duty to protect her from the alleged condition that caused the incident.

Plaintiff’s daughter testified that she saw a rubber band on the ice just before and just after her mother fell, but she further indicated that the band was picked up by someone after the incident.  It was undisputed that the ice had last been resurfaced the night before the incident, and the testimony established that skaters had been on the ice for as long as an hour on the day of the incident prior to plaintiff’s fall.  Plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to conduct an inspection of the ice during the hour leading up to the incident, such that a jury could conclude that the defendant should have known of the presence of the band on the ice.  However, the trial court disagreed:

“The undisputed testimony and evidence permits only one conclusion, that the ‘band’ was only on the ice for moments before the fall, having been dropped by the couple just prior to the incident, and being immediately retrieved by them after the incident.  There is no evidence of record which supports that Defendant knew or should have known of the presence of the band in the short interval between when Plaintiff claims it was dropped and when Plaintiff fell.  Plaintiff does not claim that Defendant is strictly liable for her injuries.  To establish negligence, Plaintiff has to show that Defendant had notice or should have had notice of debris on the ice.  The testimony of the persons present, Plaintiff, her daughter . . . , and the witness . . . cannot support a legal finding that Defendant had notice or should have had notice that there was debris on the ice.”

The trial court also concluded that “[p]rimary assumption of the risk generally applies to participants in sporting events,” and that “[p]laintiff assumed the risk that she might fall.”

No Free Lunch (or Vacation) – Florida Supreme Court Confirms Decision to Enforce Release Despite Lack of “Negligence” Language (FL)

May 13, 2015

Sanislo v.Give the Kids the World, Inc. (Florida)

The defendant non-profit organization provided free vacations to seriously ill children and their families.  The plaintiff went with her ill child on one of the defendant’s vacations, and she suffered an injury when a wheelchair lift collapsed at a resort village.  The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against the defendant, and the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a both release of liability that was included in in the wish request form filled out by the plaintiff and a liability release form signed by the plaintiff after she arrived at the resort village.  Plaintiff countered with her own motion for partial summary judgment on the defendant’s affirmative defense of release.  The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial.

(more…)

And the Runner is Out – Claim By Spectator at a Little League Game Barred by Recreational Use Statute (RI)

May 11, 2015

Carlson v. Town of South Kingston (Rhode Island)

The plaintiff was attending her son’s little league game being played at a park and field owned and maintained by the defendant town.  As she was walking from a batting cage area over to a concession stand to meet her son, she stepped in a “divot” and broke her leg.  Testimony established that the “divot” was created by kids waiting to get into the batting cages when they would dig their cleats into the ground.  Plaintiff filed an action against the town, alleging the town negligently maintained the premises.  The town moved for summary judgment based on Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute (“RUS”).  Plaintiff objected to the motion citing two exceptions to the RUS and alleging: (1) the town had “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition on the land,” and (2) the town had charged plaintiff for her access to the park.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

(more…)