CASE LAW UPDATE
Business Operator Not Liable for Natural Accumulation Inside Premises Despite Length of Time it Existed
By Dennis E. Merkley and Scott G. Weber
In Reed v. Galaxy Holdings, plaintiff, a business invitee, sued defendant, a laundromat, for personal injuries sustained when she slipped and fell on a puddle of water while entering the business. The plaintiff entered and exited the business two to three times to unload laundry from her car. She then entered the vestibule and slipped and fell on a puddle of water. It was drizzling at the time of the incident, no signs had been erected warning that the floor was wet, and the plaintiff testified that the puddle existed for approximately 60 to 90 minutes without any attempt by the defendant to dry it.
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant based on the rule of natural accumulation. Under the rule, property owners and business operators are not liable for injuries resulting from the natural accumulation of ice, snow or water that is tracked inside the premises from the outside. The court held that the natural accumulation rule applies regardless of whether there are alternative means of ingress and egress. The court denied extending the "prescribed means" exception used in federal courts where there is only one entrance/exit to the defendant's building. In addition, the court found that the Defendant would not be negligent even if the natural accumulation of water was allowed to remain for an "unreasonable" length of time nor did Defendant have a duty to provide warnings of the wet surface since it did not have a duty to prevent the accumulation in the first place.
As a note of caution, the court did state that if a property owner fails to maintain a safe means of ingress and egress for reasons other than the natural accumulation of ice, snow or water, such as a failure to adequately illuminate the premises or to repair a dangerous crack in the entry path, the store owner may be liable to an injured party who slips and falls as a result of such act or omission.
Expert Testimony Needed to Survive Summary Judgment in Products Liability Claim
Henry v. Panasonic Factory Automation Co., involved an employee of an automotive equipment maker who was injured while using a specialized piece of machinery designed and manufactured by the defendant. The injured worker and his wife filed suit against the defendant alleging that the machine was unreasonably dangerous in failing to provide proper safety features to prevent injury to its operator.
Plaintiffs retained an expert witness, Dr. Charles Roberts, to offer testimony concerning the alleged design defect of the piece of machinery. At his deposition, Dr. Roberts expressed the opinion that the machine tended to invite the operator into a very hazardous location and required him to work on it and to make sure it was working properly in the machine, which in his opinion constituted a hazardous operation. Dr. Roberts also opined that the machine was inherently dangerous because an operator was required to remain in an area of the machine while it was running in order to observe the cutter. He opined that this was dangerous because it could cause the operator to be struck by a portion of the machine.
Dr. Roberts acknowledged that the machine would not be inherently dangerous if the operator could observe the cutter bar while standing outside the machine. Specifically, when asked if it would change his opinion of whether the design in the machine was unsafe it if "were possible to adjust the cutter, step outside the machine, turn the machine on and watch it or listen to it to see if it was operating correctly," Dr. Roberts responded that if it was possible to do that, the machine would not be unsafe. He also acknowledged that the machine would not be inherently dangerous if an operator could determine the cutter bar was working correctly by listening to the machine while standing outside of it.
Dr. Roberts expressed no opinions concerning any of the three specific allegations of design defect contained in Plaintiff's complaint. Dr. Roberts was Plaintiff's only expert witness on the issue of the alleged design defect.
Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Dr. Roberts identified only one alleged defect with the machine. Specifically, that the design of the machine was dangerous because it required the operator to remain inside the machine to determine if adjustments to the cutter bar were effective. Because the unconstested facts showed that an operator need not be inside the machine to determine if the cutter bar had been adjusted correctly, Defendant contended it was entitled to summary judgment. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant filed a Statement of Uncontested Facts, which was adopted (with one minor exception) by Plaintiffs. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.
The appellate court noted that Dr. Roberts had no opinion regarding any of the specific allegations of design defect contained in Plaintiff's complaint. Instead, Dr. Roberts' only opinion, as expressed in his deposition, was that the machine was unreasonably dangerous because the design invited or required the operator to remain inside the machine to determine whether the adjustments made to the cutter bar were effective.
In the Statement of Uncontested Facts, though, Dr. Roberts admitted that the machine would not be inherently dangerous if an operator could observe the cutter bar while standing outside the machine. He also admitted that the machine would not be inherently dangerous if an operator could determine the cutter bar was working correctly by listening to the machine while standing outside of it. As the parties agreed that a machine operator could both (1) observe the cutter bar and (2) listen to the machine — while standing outside the machine – to determine if the adjustments on the cutter bar were effective, the court concluded that plaintiffs did not have an expert opinion that supported any of their three specific allegations of design defect in the complaint or the unreasonably dangerous because it invited or required an operator to be inside the machine while checking to see if the adjustments made to the cutter bar were effective. The appellate court thus affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant.
This case is important because it shows that a carefully taken deposition of a plaintiff's retained expert witness can lead to summary judgment. Even if plaintiff has a retained expert with seemingly favorable opinions, failure on the part of the expert to provide opinions supporting the allegations in the complaint may lead to summary judgment.