This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and her husband visited D's store. As they walked through a closed check-out lane into the store, P was injured when she slipped on several loose grapes that were scattered on the floor. P sued D for negligence. P's husband testified that he saw footprints made by 'some big, thick, rubber-soled shoes' leading away from the grapes, which were smashed on the floor. P got the verdict for $50,000 in damages. D moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Both were denied. D appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded that the deduction that D had constructive knowledge of the grape on the basis of it previously having been stepped upon was too remote, and concluded that this was insufficient to remove P's case from the realm of conjecture. The trial court should have granted a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support an inference of constructive notice of the presence of the grapes. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.