Bob and Tom represented an in-store vendor in a premises liability matter arising from a “slip and fall” at a grocery store in the Twin Cities. The plaintiff claimed a puddle near the entrance of the store and the client’s display caused him to fall and sustain severe neck and back injuries requiring surgery. The plaintiff claimed six-figure wage loss well into the six figures.
We successfully moved for summary judgment based on the lack of a legal duty to the patron. There was no evidence the client created the hazard, actually knew about it or had constructive notice. The plaintiff argued the incident occurred in sufficient proximity to the client’s display so as to support a reasonable inference the client caused the spill. The district court disagreed, and held that since the plaintiff could not show what caused the puddle or that it existed for a sufficient period to impute constructive notice to the vendor, the claim had to be dismissed.
Premises liability claims can present both straightforward and nuanced legal doctrines which can significantly affect the outcome. A thorough understanding of these concepts can pay dividends. If you have any questions about this, or any other matter, please contact us.