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

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

P sued D for a slip and fall. P claimed that D had negligently left the water on the restroom floor, failed to warn customers of it, and failed to maintain its restroom in a reasonably safe condition. D removed to federal district court and then moved for summary judgment. The motion was denied, and the case proceeded to trial before a jury. P presented the testimony of D managers who each stated that the restaurant had a policy of cleaning (including mopping) the restroom every day after breakfast ended at 10:30 a.m. They also stated it was their habit to put out warning signs when the floor was being mopped, and that they periodically checked the restroom throughout the day. P arrived at D's either between 10:16 a.m. and 10:26 a.m. or between 10:25 a.m. and 10:35 a.m. P claimed he entered the restroom at some point between 10:26 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. (but claims he saw no warning signs). P claimed that he was prepared to argue to the jury that he slipped in the restroom soon after a D's employee mopped the restroom and that D was responsible for its agent's negligence in leaving the water and failing to warn customers of its presence. The court concluded that P had failed to produce evidence that D had actually left water on the restroom floor prior to his fall. It ruled that D was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. P appealed.

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

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