East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., WAL-MART
| Decision Date | 15 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | WAL-MART |
| Citation | 577 So.2d 459 |
| Parties | Dorothy Jean EAST v.STORES, INC. 1900037. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
E. Paul Jones, Alexander City, for appellant.
Marda W. Sydnor of Parsons, Lee & Juliano, Birmingham, for appellee.
The plaintiff, Dorothy Jean East, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in her action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall accident at the defendant's store. She alleged that Wal-Mart had wantonly and negligently maintained the floor of its store and that its wantonness and negligence had caused her injuries.
The record shows the following facts: On October 20, 1987, Mrs. East and her husband, Billy R. East, were shopping at a Wal-Mart store in Alexander City, Alabama. While pushing a shopping cart through the store, Mrs. East slipped and fell on a foreign substance, which appeared to be either liquid soap or lotion, and, as a result of the fall, suffered injuries to her neck and lower back. The substance was located two or three feet from the edge of an aisle leading directly to a check-out register. The source of the substance was never found. Mr. East reported the accident to a Wal-Mart employee working at the customer service desk. Both Mr. and Mrs. East testified that the substance was in one puddle before the fall and that it was white in color. They testified that, before Mrs. East's fall, the puddle did not have any "skid marks" in it, and that it appeared to them that no one else had stepped in the substance. Neither Mrs. East nor her husband knew how long the substance had been on the floor before the accident. The Easts further testified that they did not believe that Wal-Mart had any notice that the substance was on the floor until the accident was reported.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Wal-Mart submitted the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. East. Wal-Mart also filed a memorandum brief on the date set for a hearing on the motion. Mrs. East submitted nothing in opposition to Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.
The only issue presented is whether, under these circumstances, the summary judgment was proper. Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for entering summary judgment. That rule requires the trial court to determine (1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact and (2) that the moving party is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nall's Newton Tire
-
Patrick v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
...was on the floor; or (3) that [the storekeeper] was delinquent in not discovering and removing the substance.' " East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 577 So. 2d 459, 461 (Ala. 1991) (quoting Maddox, 565 So. 2d at 16). "Where, however, the defendant or his employees have affirmatively created the ......
-
Giles v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
...529 So.2d 986, 986 (Ala. 1988)(" "No presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact of injury to a customer."). In East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Alabama Supreme Court also discussed, in the context of a motion for summary judgment, the applicable law in "slip and fall" cases and h......
-
Hose v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc.
...only if it failed to use reasonable care in maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe manner. Mills, supra, East v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 577 So.2d 459 (Ala.1991); Cox v. Western Supermarkets, Inc., 557 So.2d 831, 832 (Ala.1989). No presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact o......