CLARK V. KMART CORP.
465 Mich. 416, 634 N.W.2d 347 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Clarks (P), and her husband, filed a negligence action against KMart
(D) after P slipped and fell on loose grapes scattered on the floor of a closed check-out
lane. P got the verdict and D appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and Ps appealed.
FACTS: P and her husband visited D's store. As they walked through a closed check-out
lane into the store, P was injured when she slipped on several loose grapes that were
scattered on the floor. P sued D for negligence. P's husband testified that he saw
footprints made by 'some big, thick, rubber-soled shoes' leading away from the grapes, which
were smashed on the floor. P got the verdict for $50,000 in damages. D moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Both were denied. D appealed. The Court of
Appeals reversed. It concluded that the deduction that D had constructive knowledge of the
grape on the basis of it previously having been stepped upon was too remote, and concluded
that this was insufficient to remove P's case from the realm of conjecture. The trial court
should have granted a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support an
inference of constructive notice of the presence of the grapes. Ps appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment