Contact us today for a free, no obligation consultation about your personal injury legal needs. Call us at (800) 690-0235 or fill out this quick form and we will contact you within 24 hours!
"A man who allegedly slipped on a smashed piece of fruit in defendants grocery store's produce section, and suffered a knee injury that required reconstructive surgery, has his negligence suit heard by jury but dismissed by a magistrate judge for the Newport News U.S. District Court under FRCP 50(b).
None of the trial testimony established, or even suggested, that defendant in this case saw the piece of fruit upon which plaintiff slipped on the floor, nor that it had been there long enough that defendant should have known of its presence. The plaintiff himself testified that he did not see the fruit until after he had already fallen, he did not know where it originated, and he did not know how long it had been on the floor. Plaintiff's son likewise testified he did not see the fruit until after his father fell, despite having walked through the area just a few minutes earlier.
The store's produce manager acknowledged at trial that the plaintiff's fall occurred near a table containing a display of loose summer fruit, including plums. She also acknowledged that, although Food Lion employees stack loose fruit so it doesn't roll off the display tables, customers are known to rearrange the fruit, sometimes knocking it to the floor. She testified it was her practice to pick up fallen fruit immediately when she saw it. She specifically testified she was in the vicinity of the summer fruit display within a few minutes prior to plaintiff's fall, that she was no more than 10 feet away with a clear and unobstructed view of the area where he fell, and that she did not see anything on the floor. None of the other witnesses who testified at trial were present when plaintiff fell.
A review of the surveillance video, admitted into evidence at trial, confirms that the produce manager indeed was in the vicinity in the minutes before plaintiff's fall occurred. The surveillance video is grainy, and the camera's view of the area where the plaintiff fell is partially obstructed by light fixtures. The area where plaintiff fell cannot be seen in sufficient detail to indentify anything on the floor, when it might have been placed there, or by whom. Throughout the 18-minute period covered by the video, several other customers can be seen walking through the aisle where plaintiff fell without any difficulty, including two customers who walked through what appears to be the very same spot less than two and a half minutes before plaintiff's fall.
The court concludes a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient basis to find in favor of plaintiff under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The court grants defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 (b). [Explanation of Rule 50 (b) ] The court conditionally grants plaintiff a new trial. If this judgment is vacated or reversed on appeal, the appellate court's disposition must necessarily rely on determination that, to the contrary, a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the evidence in the record." (Article from VA Lawyers Weekly Volume 26, Number 10, Page 10-11)
Personal injury cases, especially slip and falls can be sticky (or should I say slippery) situations. If you have had a slip and fall you need a quality lawyer who can help you get what you deserve. Call Norfolk based and local Hampton Roads Attorney Michael S. Weisberg for help and advice.