 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Potts v. Cinemark USA12/22/2003
. Plaintiff-appellant, Susan E. Potts, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Cinemark USA, following a jury trial.
. On October 13, 1998, appellant filed a complaint against appellee alleging personal injury arising out of an incident that occurred on November 16, 1996 at Movies 8 Theater, owned and operated by appellee. Appellant alleged that she slipped and fell on a wet floor while walking through a lobby in the theater. Appellant claimed that appellee had mopped the floor on which she fell, causing an unsafe and dangerous condition, and that appellee was negligent in failing to warn patrons of the condition of the floor. On August 26, 2002, appellee filed a motion in limine, which sought the exclusion of evidence of a subsequent fall involving a child, Jasmin, just after appellant's fall. Trial began on August 27, 2002. Just before the start of the trial, the court heard the parties' arguments on the motion in limine. The court sustained appellee's motion, thereby precluding appellant from introducing evidence of Jasmin's fall.
. On August 30, 2002, the jury returned a verdict for appellee. The trial court entered judgment on the verdict on September 5, 2002. Appellant filed her timely notice of appeal on September 27, 2002.
. Appellant raises one assignment of error, which states:
. "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT, IN GRANTING THE APPELLEE'S MOTION IN LIMINE PREVENTING THE APPELLANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF A NEARLY CONTEMPORANEOUS FALL AND THE CONDITIONS AND MANNER UNDER WHICH THE FALLS OCCURRED."
. Appellant wanted to introduce evidence of Jasmin's subsequent fall, including appellee's accident report of Jasmin's fall, as well as the testimony of Mary James, appellant's friend, and David Conti, appellee's assistant manager, regarding the child's fall. Appellant argues that evidence of the condition of the floor, including evidence of the other fall, had the tendency to make the existence of the dangerous condition more probable than it would be without the evidence. Appellant urges that both she and Ms. James could have testified as to the conditions that existed. Further, appellant contends, these facts were of significant consequence to the determination of the action and were relevant to the case at bar. Appellant also notes that appellee argued that even if relevant, this evidence should be excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, thus misleading the jury. But appellant urges this argument was unsupported by any allegation as to how such admission would be prejudicial or confuse the jury. In fact, appellant continues, evidence of a nearly contemporaneous fall was not only relevant, but would assist the jury in determining the conditions that were present at the time she encountered them.
. Additionally, appellant points out that appellee, in its opening statement, referred to Ms. James being able to traverse the area without difficulty. (Tr. 93-94). Additionally, appellant continues, appellee argued in its closing argument that appellant failed to act in a manner that a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances should have. (Tr. 612). Appellant argues that allowing appellee to insinuate that there was nothing wrong with the floor's condition since Ms. James was able to walk through without incident, but denying her the ability to present evidence contra to this inference was unfair and misled the jury as to the specific conditions that existed at the time.
. We must first address appellee's contention that appel
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|