Slip-and-fall warning claim belongs before jury

Listen to this article

A jury should decide whether a convenience store negligently created and failed to warn of a dangerous condition that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall injuries.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the defendant after the plaintiff fell outside a South Carolina store while walking over a painted parking-lot line that had recently been washed with water and a powdered concrete cleaning agent. The U.S. District Court found the condition open and obvious, the injury unforeseeable and the plaintiff’s causation evidence insufficient without expert testimony.
The 4th Circuit disagreed, holding that factual disputes remained under South Carolina premises-liability law. Because the defendant invited the public onto its property, it owed customers a duty of reasonable care, including care tailored to a broad range of invitees rather than only healthy or highly attentive customers.
The court rejected the conclusion that the danger was open and obvious as a matter of law. Although the plaintiff could see wet pavement and an employee working outside, a reasonable customer would not necessarily know that a chemical cleaner had made the area more slippery. The absence of cones, signs or other warnings also could support a finding that the defendant failed to adequately alert customers to the hazard.
The court also held that expert testimony was not required to prove causation. Jurors could rely on common experience to assess whether slipping, twisting a leg and immediately feeling pain could cause the alleged tendon injury. The court vacated rulings on expert testimony and spoliation and remanded for further proceedings.
The 13 page opinion is Lewis v. Circle K Stores Inc., Lawyers Weekly No. 001-169-26.