Premises Liability

December 19, 2016

Plaintiff’s Parking Lot Slip-and-Fall Case Fails to Survive Summary Judgment

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a woman who slipped and fell on some loose stones outside a home improvement store. In the case, Piotrowski v. Menard, the court ultimately held that the plaintiff’s bare-bones assertion that the stones’ presence could have been due to the negligence of a store employee was insufficient to survive summary judgement, and the case was dismissed.

The Facts of the Case

Piotrowski was shopping at the defendant’s home improvement store with her husband when she slipped and fell outside the store’s entrance, fracturing her elbow. After she got up from her fall, she noticed that two small stones had caused her to lose her balance. She filed a premises liability lawsuit against the store, claiming that they were negligent in either creating the dangerous condition (the loose stones) or failing to remedy a known dangerous condition.

At the summary judgment proceeding, evidence was presented that not far from where Piotrowski fell, there was a planter filled with river rock. A store manager testified that store employees would occasionally have to refill the planter with river rock because the level of rock in the planter would decrease over time. One witness testified that children would play in the planter and occasionally inadvertently track the small rocks out with them as they left the planter.

November 16, 2016

Court Discusses Hotel’s Duty to Keep Guests Safe in Recent Opinion

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Kentucky issued an opinion in a premises liability case brought by a man who slipped and fell while staying as a guest in the defendant hotel. In the case, Goodwin v. Al J. Schneider, the court had the opportunity to discuss the duty of care hotels owe to their guests, ultimately holding that the hotel did owe Goodwin a duty to keep him safe from both known and unknown hazards.

The Facts of the Case

Goodwin and his wife were staying at the defendant hotel during a conference. On the second night of their stay, Goodwin attempted to get into the shower but slipped and fell, injuring his leg. Goodwin brought a premises liability lawsuit against the hotel, arguing that the hotel was negligent in failing to take sufficient measures to prevent slip-and-fall accidents while getting into the shower.

Specifically, Goodwin pointed to the fact that there was not a bathmat in the shower, and other rooms in the hotel did have bathmats. He acknowledged that the shower had a hand rail to assist guests in getting into the shower, but he argued that the failure to place a bathmat in the shower was a violation of the duty of care the hotel owed him, and this breach of duty resulted in his fall.

November 9, 2016

Court Invalidates Arbitration Clause, Allowing Plaintiffs to Pursue Negligence Claim in Court

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier last month, an appellate court in Louisiana issued a written opinion invalidating an arbitration clause in a case brought by the parents of a young child who was injured while at the defendant’s trampoline park. In the case, Alicea v. Activelaf, the court held that although the plaintiff voluntarily signed a contract containing a clause agreeing to arbitration, the clause was invalid, and therefore the defendant cannot demand arbitration.

A Young Boy Is Injured While at the Defendant’s Trampoline Park

The Aliceas planned on taking their two young boys to the defendant’s trampoline park. However, prior to allowing anyone access to the park, the defendant required that guests sign a “Participant Agreement, Release and Assumption of Risk.” This is common among pay-to-play activities, such as bungee jumping, water parks, and ski resorts. Essentially, these forms, if signed, give up certain rights the guest would otherwise have. Specific to this case, the contract contained a clause waiving the plaintiffs’ right to use the court system if any personal injury claims should arise during their visit. Instead of proceeding through court, the contract stated that the claims would be settled through arbitration.

Arbitration is an alternative to the court system, in which a single arbitrator or panel of arbitrators will make a decision on a plaintiff’s personal injury claim. Arbitration is usually binding, is much cheaper for sophisticated litigants, and tends to favor the companies that seek to compel it. Whenever possible, it is usually in a plaintiff’s interest to have a case filed in a court of law rather than through arbitration.

October 17, 2016

Woman Recovers $1.3 Million from Supermarket After Being Struck by Grocery Cart

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an Ohio woman recovered over $1.3 million after a jury found in her favor in a premises liability lawsuit filed against a supermarket chain. The lawsuit alleged that the supermarket chain failed to provide adequate instruction to customers using motorized shopping carts.

According to one industry news source reporting on the case, the accident occurred back in 2012, when another customer lost control of a motorized grocery cart and struck the plaintiff. After being struck by the cart, the plaintiff was tossed four feet and struck her head on the side of a nearby shelf. As a result, the 71-year-old plaintiff suffered serious head and neck injuries, requiring ongoing treatment.

While no supermarket employees were involved in the accident, the plaintiff proceeded under the theory that the grocery store was negligent in failing to provide adequate instructions for customers using the motorized carts. To help her case, the plaintiff submitted evidence of 119 similar accidents involving motorized grocery carts in the same supermarket chain over a nine-year period. With this evidence, the plaintiff was able to argue that the grocery store chain was aware of the dangers involved in letting customers use the motorized carts without instructions. The jury’s verdict consisted of $125,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages.

July 27, 2016

Recreational Use Statute Prevents Paralyzed Accident Victim from Seeking Compensation

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Rhode Island issued an instructive opinion regarding that state’s recreational use statute and how the statute may be used by defendants to avoid liability in a premises liability case. The case is also instructive to potential premises liability plaintiffs, since it shows which facts must be pleaded and proven in order for the case to survive a summary judgment challenge by the defense.

Roy v. State: The Facts of the Case

Roy was with some friends at a state-run park. The park had a medium-sized pond in which people routinely swam, despite there being signs that swimming was prohibited. In fact, on some days, the government agency in charge of the park would staff the pond with lifeguards and allow swimming. There were, however, a number of “no diving” signs placed around the pond. Generally, the prohibition on diving was enforced, but there was an old diving platform that was still left from previous years when diving was permitted.

On the day in question, Roy got out of his parked car, ran up to the edge of the pond, and quickly inspected it before diving in. Roy later testified that the pond looked deep enough and that if it hadn’t looked safe to dive in, he would not have done it. When Roy did dive into the pond, his head struck the bottom, and he was paralyzed as a result. He later filed a lawsuit against the state agency in charge of the park’s maintenance.

July 20, 2016

Court Finds Dangerous Placement of Parking Lot May Give Rise to Liability in Premises Liability Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Premises liability cases, like most other cases brought under the legal theory of negligence, require that the plaintiff establish the defendant owed them a duty of care. In many cases, this element is the easiest for the plaintiff to prove, but in others there may be substantial litigation over whether a duty of care exists. In a recent case in front of a state appellate court, the court had to decide if a church had a duty to its churchgoers in providing them some assistance in crossing a dangerous street to get from the church parking lot to the church itself.

In the case, Vasilenko v. Grace Family Church, the court ultimately determined that a duty did exist, requiring the church to take some precautions to ensure that churchgoers could safely cross the street.

The Facts of the Case

Grace Family Church is located on a busy five-lane road. The church has a small parking lot next to it that fills up quickly when busy church events are being held. To help accommodate the additional cars, the church contracted with a local business to use the business’ parking lot across the five-lane road.

June 27, 2016

Man Injured by Faulty Handrail Denied Compensation Based on Incomplete Negligence Claim

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a West Virginia court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a man who suffered a shoulder injury when he fell after leaning on what turned out to be a damaged handrail. The court in the case of Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli determined that the injured man’s case against the park was incomplete in that the man failed to submit any evidence regarding the duty the park had to maintain the handrail.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his wife were visiting the park to attend a concert. Since there was no seating available when they arrived, they ended up standing near a fence that protected visitors from inadvertently falling down a nearby hill. The plaintiff, looking for a place to lean, quickly visually inspected a handrail on the fence and then placed his weight against it. As he did so, the rail snapped at both ends, causing the plaintiff to fall down the hill. As a result of the fall, the man suffered a rotator cuff injury requiring surgery and months of physical therapy.

The plaintiff and his wife filed a premises liability lawsuit against the park, arguing that the park’s management was negligent for failing to keep the park safe. Specifically, they argued that it was negligent to allow the handrail to decay to such an extent that the weight of a single person leaning up against it could cause the rail to break.

June 20, 2016

“Assumption of the Risk Doctrine” Prevents Wrongful Death Case from Proceeding

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion holding that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a young man killed while skateboarding was properly dismissed below because the young boy assumed the risk of the dangerous activity in which he was engaging when he suffered his fatal injury. In the case, Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water District, the court’s decision will prevent the boy’s father from receiving compensation for the loss of his son.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his two sons were staying at a friend’s condo in Mammoth County, California. The two boys were skateboarding around the neighborhood before meeting up with their father to go rock climbing. Along the way, the boys pushed their way up a hill so that they could enjoy the long and fast ride down. However, on the way down the hill, one of the boys’ boards hit a lip surrounding a manhole cover, and he was thrown from the board. He was not wearing a helmet. When he struck the ground, he hit his head, causing him to suffer a traumatic brain injury. He later died from the injuries he sustained.

The boys’ father filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the local government and the water company that installed the manhole cover, seeking compensation for the loss of his son. The father claimed that the manhole cover was dangerous and that it was negligent for the government to fail to fix the hazard.

June 13, 2016

Bar Found Not Liable for Negligence after Customer Leaves and Strikes Another Patron with Vehicle

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Pittman v. Rivera, holding that a bar owner was not liable under a theory of negligence when one of the bar’s patrons struck another customer after being kicked out for being aggressive. The court based its decision on a lack of foreseeability at the time the bar’s management kicked out the at-fault patron.

Pittman v. Rivera

Pittman was struck by Rivera’s vehicle after Rivera was kicked out of the defendant’s bar for being aggressive toward his girlfriend, an employee at the bar. Initially, Rivera left the bar without incident, but then he returned a few hours later and tried to get back into the bar. The bar’s bouncer didn’t allow Rivera back in, and Rivera got back into his car.

Rivera, upset that he was not allowed back in the bar, began driving his car in a fast and reckless manner around the bar, making U-turns and revving his engine loudly. While Rivera was engaging in this reckless behavior, Pittman was outside the bar talking with friends. Unfortunately, Pittman was struck by Rivera’s vehicle and suffered serious injuries as a result. Pittman then filed a negligence lawsuit against Rivera as well as the owners of the bar.

May 18, 2016

Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Claim Denied for Failing to Meet Filing Deadline

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

A state appellate court in Maine recently handed down a decision that demonstrates the importance of meeting deadlines and other procedural requirements when making a personal injury or wrongful death claim, especially when the claim is against a state or municipality. The plaintiff in the case of Deschenes v. The City of Sanford was a man who claims that he was injured when he fell down a dangerous staircase at the Sanford City Hall. After his accident, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, seeking damages for his injuries. Although the plaintiff gave oral notice to the city regarding his fall and his request for compensation, he did not provide formal written notice of his claim until after the six-month deadline in Maine for providing such notice.

The City of Sanford Succeeds in Disposing of the Case

At the district court, the City of Sanford argued that the plaintiff did not properly follow the procedures to sue a government entity in the state of Maine, and that the claim must be dismissed. Specifically, the city argued that Maine’s sovereign immunity act required that cities and towns be notified of negligence claims against them within 180 days of an accident.

Although the plaintiff notified the city in person shortly after the accident, both the district court and the state supreme court ruled that such notice was not sufficient under the statute, and that the plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed. Based on the Maine Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmed the lower court order, the plaintiff will be unable to recover any damages as a result of the city’s alleged negligence that caused his injuries.