Christopher Blain and Ryan Sainz (Tampa, FL) (Premises Liability) obtained a defense verdict for WaWa. The matter concerned an alleged slip and fall in a Wawa. Immediately after the fall, the Plaintiff was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a broken hip and fractured pelvis. As a result of this diagnosis, the Plaintiff underwent emergency total hip replacement surgery. The Plaintiff claimed that she fell shortly after entering. Specifically, she claimed that she fell while walking down the chip aisle. The only other eye witness testimony to this incident was that of an independent witness. This individual provided information that the Plaintiff did not slip. Rather, she sat down on the floor. Despite this conflicting evidence, the Plaintiff was adamant that her version was the only reasonable explanation for her alleged injuries.
During her deposition the Plaintiff testified that she did not know what caused her to fall, she did not see anything on the ground, and only felt a “splash” on her face. However, the Plaintiff did not know where this splash came from. From the outset of this action, it was undisputed that a Wawa employee mopped the floor prior to the Plaintiff entering the store. Both parties retained liability experts to perform examinations of the flooring surface of the subject Wawa.
Prior to trial, Mr. Blain filed a motion to strike the Plaintiff’s liability expert which was granted. As such, Plaintiff entered trial without a liability expert. During trial, the Plaintiff presented testimony of the Plaintiff, 3 Wawa employees and their Orthopedic surgeon. The testimony from the surgeon was undisputed that a fractured hip and fractured pelvis were diagnosed. Furthermore, it was undisputed that the Plaintiff underwent a hip surgery. However, at the close of Plaintiff’s case our argument remained that Wawa did not cause this injury or the alleged incident. The Plaintiff herself could not provide any testimony as to what caused her to fall, if there was anything on the ground, any substance on her skin or on her clothing at the time of the fall. In addition, the Wawa employees called by the Plaintiff all testified that there were multiple “wet floor cones” on the ground throughout the area where Plaintiff was found on the ground.
During our case in chief, we called our liability expert who testified that the floor exceeded the industry standard of 0.50 for coefficient friction. This provided information that the floor was not slippery at the time of the incident. Finally, the independent witness and his wife were called to testify. The independent witness testified the as he exited the restroom he witnessed the Plaintiff sit down slowly. At the time of this incident, he was of the belief that the Plaintiff was having a medical episode such as a heart attack. He also testified that he witnessed multiple “wet floor cones” throughout the area of this incident prior to and at the time he witnessed the Plaintiff go to the ground. Finally, he testified that he recalled the flooring surface being dry as he went to the bathroom and when he saw the Plaintiff go to the ground. This witnesses’ wife also confirmed the presence of the cones as well as the fact that the floor was dry at the time that she observed the Plaintiff on the ground.
At the close of evidence in the Plaintiff’s case and our case, a motion for directed verdict was made as to liability and damages. The argument was that Plaintiff failed to present any direct evidence that 1) there was a condition on the ground at the time of this incident, 2) that the condition caused the Plaintiff to fall and 3) that Wawa failed to adequately warn the Plaintiff. The Court was provided with overwhelming amount of case law which held that inference stacking was impermissible when based in circumstantial evidence and when the initial inference was not established to the exclusion of all reasonable inferences. Initially, this motion was denied as to liability but granted as to the issue of future medicals. However, following the close of our case the court reserved ruling on the issue of liability.
During closing argument, the Plaintiff demanded over $450,000 in damages for past medical, past pain and suffering and future pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict in under 20 minutes and found no liability on Wawa.