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...
