OLIVER
v.
7-11 FOOD STORES, LTD.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this premises liability case, the court upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff against a convenience store, holding that evidence of a dangerously slick floor (based on the store manager's admission that employees were "slipping and sliding") was sufficient to establish negligence even without evidence of specific wet or greasy substances.
The court held that the absence of identifiable substances does not exonerate the defendant as a matter of law. The store manager's statement that employees were "slipping and sliding" was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to infer the floor was dangerously slick, which created a duty to warn customers, and the failure to provide such warning constituted negligence.
“the absence of such substances does not exonerate the defendant from liability as a matter of law where as here there was evidence that defendant's store manager reported to his associates or superiors that the condition of the floor at and before the time the plaintiff fell was such that — "we are slipping and sliding around the place ourselves."”
Establishes that circumstantial evidence of a dangerous floor condition is sufficient to create liability even without direct evidence of specific substances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff fell in a 7-11 Food Store. The defendant store manager reported to associates that the floor condition was such that employees were "sli…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause came on to be heard upon defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a motion for a new trial, and the court having considered the same and being otherwise advised in the premises, is of the opinion that said motions should be denied.
The principal thrust of defendant’s argument in support of the motions revolves around the question of the existence vel non of any evidence from which a jury could find that the defendant was guilty of negligence where there was no evidence of “waxy, greasy, wet and slippery substances on the floor of the store at the spot where plaintiff fell.”
The court is of the opinion that the absence of such substances does not exonerate the defendant from liability as a matter of law where as here there was evidence that defendant’s store manager reported to his associates or superiors that the condition of the floor at and before the time the plaintiff fell was such that — “we are slipping and sliding around the place ourselves.”
It is the further opinion of the court that such a statement made by the defendant’s store manager is sufficient to justify the inference that the floor was uniformly and throughout so slick that the employees working there themselves were having difficulty getting around, and further, that if the jury concluded that such was the condition of the floor there arose a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and others to give some special warning of the condition of the floor, and that the failure to give such warning constituted sufficient negligence to justify a finding for the plaintiff on the issue of liability.
Accordingly, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that defendant’s said motions be, and the same are each hereby, denied and plaintiff’s costs herein are hereby taxed at $119, for which let execution issue.