by KPMLAW | Oct 29, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized, Updates
Last month, KPM’s Brian Cafritz reported about a string of recent rulings on slip and fall cases and the impact that placing a warning cone has on a company’s liability. Our report was quite prophetic, as it preceded yet another ruling that reinforced our analysis. UPDATE By Brian Cafritz, Esq. On October 8, 2015, Judge Moon of the USDC, Western District of Virginia, published his opinion in Robinson v. Kroger Co., Case No 6:14-cv-00046. In Robinson, plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid at a Kroger store when no cones or signs were displayed to warn of danger. Store video showed that the spill in question was created only 65 seconds before Robinson fell, and 37 seconds from when Kroger was notified of the spill. Facts revealed that Robinson entered the area of the spill and turned her cart to walk towards a self-checkout stand. In doing so, she pushed her cart directly through the spill, and once her feet hit the area, they slipped from under her. In depositions, Robinson stated that the puddle sized spill was beige, which was the same color of the floor. Ms. Robinson also acknowledged that nothing was hiding the liquid substance from her view, and that she was able to see it without difficulty when she stood directly above the spill. When asked whether, “if [she] had been looking at the floor looking for this liquid, would [she] have been able to see it,” Ms. Robinson responded, “I guess.” Based on this testimony, Kroger moved for Summary Judgment, arguing that because Robinson could clearly see the spill after the fall, and because she...
by KPMLAW | Sep 14, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Author: Brian Cafritz, Esquire It is all too common that a customer or piece of equipment spills or drips liquid on the floor. The business learns of the problem and places a cone on the floor either prior to cleaning or after cleaning. Despite the warning cone, a guest falls and sues the business for negligence. Because Virginia applies a contributory negligence standard (1% negligence by plaintiff is a total bar to recovery), the defendant almost always has a decent liability argument to take to the jury. However, the real goal is to have the case dismissed on summary judgment and avoid the uncertainty of a jury altogether. Over the last 12 months, several new opinions in Virginia Federal Courts have provided valuable guidance on how to assess the potential liability of these claims, and they specifically point to critical facts to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate or not. In each of the cases, the court focused on fact issues, such as “How close was the cone to the fall?” and “Was the condition that caused the fall the same condition the cone was warning against? Like most states, the general law of premises liability in Virginia is that a business owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to make the particular area reasonably safe for plaintiff’s use, or to give adequate warning of any hidden or concealed danger that it knows or should know about. However, behind that basic tenet of the law, there are a seemingly infinite number of variations in fact patterns that make the simplest concept problematic. Over the years, the Virginia Supreme Court...
by KPMLAW | Sep 14, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Editor: Rachel Riordan, Esquire Author: Robert McAdam, Esquire The “Willful Misconduct Defense” has recently been given a boost by the Court of Appeals in Layne v Crist Elect. Contr., Inc. 64 Va. App. 342, 768 S.E.2d 261 (2015). Under familiar statutory law (Virginia Code §65.2-306(A)(5)) workers’ compensation benefits will be denied to a claimant when the claimant commits a willful breach of a workplace safety rule brought to his attention prior to the accident; even though the underlying event would otherwise be compensable. This statute was recently reinvigorated by Layne. In Layne, the claimant was an employee of an electrical contractor and a subcontractor performing electrical work in a warehouse owned by Delta Star. The claimant was installing electrical conduit from a scissor lift high up in Delta Star’s core cutting room and had almost completed installing the conduit. Delta Star’s bridge crane, which was operational at the time, hit claimant’s scissor lift, causing both the scissor lift and claimant to fall far to the floor. The claimant sustained catastrophic injuries. The Claimant’s accident arose out of and occurred in the course of the employment. However, the Employer raised a willful misconduct defense, asserting the bridge crane would not have hit the scissor lift, and the injuries would not have occurred, if the claimant had rendered the bridge crane inoperable by following the “lockout-tagout” safety procedure. This procedure ensured that the electrified rails which allowed the bridge crane to move were inoperable, ensuring that the crane could not move. At hearing, the evidence showed the claimant was never given any written materials addressing the “lockout-tagout” procedure and did not...
