Anslinger v. Christian Hosp.

• Docket Number: ED 111387
• Decision Date: 30 April 2024
• Citation: 687 S.W.3d 180
• Parties: Patricia ANSLINGER, Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL NORTHEAST-NORTHWEST, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

687 S.W.3d 180

Patricia ANSLINGER, Respondent,

v.CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL NORTHEAST-NORTHWEST, Appellant.

No. ED 111387

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: January 23, 2024

Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied March 11, 2024

Application for Transfer Denied April 30, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Saint Louis County, 20SL-CC00821, Honorable Dean P. Waldemer, Judge

FOR APPELLANT: Terrence J. O’Toole, Jr., David C. Vaughn, Lisa A. Larkin, 100 North Broadway, 21st Floor, St. Louis, MO 63102.

FOR RESPONDENT: Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Joshua D. Moore, Kari A. Schulte, 630 Bolivar St., Ste. 101, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

ROBERT M. CLAYTON III, Presiding Judge

Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest (the "Hospital") appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Patricia Anslinger("Plaintiff") on her personal injury claim arising out of Plaintiff’s trip and fall as she walked through the Hospital’s vestibule.The trial court’s judgment entered upon the jury’s verdict awarded Plaintiff $97,500 in damages, $2,644.74 in statutory court costs, and post-judgment interest.We affirm.

I.BACKGROUND

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff drove her friend to the Hospital for a visit with the friend’s husband who was taken there the prior night.After parking her car, Plaintiff and her friend approached the Hospital’s entrance and passed through an initial set of sliding doors and into a vestibule leading to the Hospital.The vestibule floor was partially covered by several heavy rubber mats sitting on top of the carpet.As Plaintiff walked through the vestibule, her feet caught on a protruded edge of one of the rubber mats, causing Plaintiff to trip and fall to the floor.After being helped up, Plaintiff continued with her visit to the Hospital.

Plaintiff subsequently brought a personal injury claim against the Hospital on a theory of premises liability.Plaintiff’s petition alleged the Hospital had a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition, and it failed to use ordinary care when it did not address and remedy the unsafe condition of the floor mat in the vestibule or warn Plaintiff of the potential trip hazard created by the mat.The petition further alleged that the Hospital’s negligence directly and proximately resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries, including a torn rotator cuff, pain and suffering, medical bills and expenses, and impairment of her daily activities.

A three-day jury trial took place in October 2022.At trial, a photograph was admitted depicting the vestibule before Plaintiff entered, which showed a slight fold at the point where two of the floor mats converged.Video footage of Plaintiff’s trip and fall was also admitted at trial and played for the jury.Plaintiff testified that although she realized there were rubber mats on the floor, she never saw the fold in the mat that ultimately caused her to trip and fall.While responding to questioning on cross-examination, Plaintiff stated she was unable to see the fold in the mat because she was not "looking straight down," and further agreed with opposing counsel that had she been looking down, she would have seen the fold in the mat because it was "open and obvious."

At the close of Plaintiff’s evidence and again at the close of all the evidence, the Hospital moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that, inter alia, the condition of the floor mat in the Hospital’s vestibule was open and obvious as a matter of law.The trial court denied both motions for directed verdict.The jury returned a verdict attributing sixty-five percent of the fault to the Hospital and the remaining thirty-five percent to Plaintiff.The jury assessed the total damages at $150,000, resulting in an award of $97,500 in damages in favor of Plaintiff.Subsequently, the Hospital timely filed a motion for Judgment notwithstanding the verdict("JNOV") in accordance with its prior motions for directed verdict.After briefing by both parties, the trial court heard oral argument on the matter and subsequently denied the Hospital’s motion for JNOV.The trial court entered a judgment upon the jury’s verdict awarding Plaintiff $97,500 in damages, $2,644.74 in statutory court costs, and post-judgment interest.This appeal followed.

II.DISCUSSION

The Hospital’s sole point on appeal argues the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and its motion for JNOV because the dangerous condition of the rubber floor mat over which Plaintiff tripped was open and obvious as a matter of law.

A.Standard of Review and General Law

[1–4] The standards of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict and the denial of a motion for JNOV are essentially the same.Keveney v. Missouri Military Academy, 304 S.W.3d 98, 104(Mo. banc 2010).To defeat either motion, the plaintiff must put forth a submissible case by offering substantial evidence to support every element necessary for a finding of liability.Id Whether the plaintiff’s case was submissible is a question of law subject to de novo review.Ellison v. Fry, 437 S.W.3d 762, 768(Mo. banc 2014).This Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences, disregarding all conflicting evidence and inferences.Keveney, 304 S.W.3d at 104.We will reverse the jury’s verdict only in the complete absence of probative facts to support the jury’s conclusion.Id.

[5–7] Liability in a negligence action only exists when the defendant’s conduct falls below the applicable standard of care required to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm and when such conduct proximately causes injury to the plaintiff.Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222, 225(Mo. banc 1993).The applicable standard of care in each case is a question of law for the courts, and whether the defendant falls below that standard of care is a factual question for the jury.Id However, a case is not submissible to a jury when no evidence exists to support a finding that the defendant fell below the applicable standard of care.Id[8–10] When a plaintiff files a premises liability claim against a possessor of land for injuries sustained due to an unreasonably dangerous condition on the land, the relationship between the parties defines the applicable standard of care.IdThe parties to this case do not dispute Plaintiff’s status as an invitee on the Hospital’s land for purposes of the present appeal.When the plaintiff is an invitee, a possessor of land is liable for injuries to the plaintiff caused by a condition on the land only if the possessor:

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees[;] and

(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger or will fail to protect themselves against it[;] and

(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

Id at 225-26(citation omitted).Therefore, to meet the applicable standard of care, a possessor of land is required to:

(1) exercise reasonable care; (2) disclose to the invitee all dangerous conditions which are known to the possessor and are likely not to be discovered by the invitee; and (3) see that the premises are safe for the reception of a visitor, or at least ascertain the condition of the land, to give such warning that the invitee may decide intelligently whether or not to accept the invitation, or may protect himself against the danger if he does accept it.

Id at 226(citation omitted).

B.The Hospital’s Argument That the Condition of the Floor Mat Was Open and Obvious as a Matter of Law

[11–13] When a dangerous condition "is so open and obvious that the invitee should reasonably be expected to discover it and realize the danger, a possessor of land does not breach the standard of care owed to invitees unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness."Id(citation and internal quotations omitted)(emphasis in original)."This element acknowledges that a possessor of land is not an absolute insurer of the well-being of its invitees."Id Accordingly, a possessor of land does not fall below the applicable standard of care for failing to protect an invitee from a condition that is open and obvious as a matter of law.Id

The Hospital argues the condition of the floor mat at issue in this case was open and obvious as a matter of law, an argument based in large part on the following exchange from Plaintiff’s cross-examination at trial:

[Opposing Counsel:] You saw those mats as you were walking up to the vestibule … correct?

[Plaintiff:] Yes.

[Opposing Counsel:] And is it your testimony that you were unable to see this fold in the mat?

[Plaintiff:] No, because you don’t - I wasn’t walking looking straight down.

[Opposing Counsel:] Had you been looking straight down, you would have seen this because this is open and obvious, right?

[Plaintiff:] Yes.

[14] Based on the above statements and corroborating testimony from Plaintiff’s friend who witnessed the incident, the Hospital argues the condition of the mat which Plaintiff tripped upon was open and obvious as a matter of law because: (1) the evidence showed Plaintiff explicitly agreed the condition was "open and obvious"; (2) the evidence showed that had Plaintiff been looking straight down as she walked, she would have seen the fold in the mat, and there was nothing which prevented her from doing so; and (3) the Western District’s decision in Crow v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 174 S.W.3d 523(Mo. App. W.D.2005), is instructive in this case.¹For the reasons discussed below, we disagree with the Hospital’s arguments and hold the condition of the floor mat which Plaintiff tripped upon was not open and obvious as a matter of law.

1.The Evidence Showing Plaintiff May Have Conceded the Fold in the Floor Mat Was "Open and Obvious"

[15, 16]We begin by addressing the...