 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stewart v. Beaumont Aerie Number 1165/27/1999
Leola Stewart and Stanley Stewart brought a personal injury suit against Beaumont Aerie 116, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. (the Eagles). The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Stewarts. The trial court granted the Eagles' motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict. The Stewarts bring three issues on appeal.
This is a slip-and-fall case. Leola Stewart was injured when she slipped in a puddle of water on premises owned by the Eagles. In their first two issues, the Stewarts complain the trial court erred in granting the Eagles' motion for JNOV. The entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is only proper if there is no evidence from which the jury could have made its findings. Stokes v. Puckett, 972 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1998, pet. denied); Williams v. City of Midland, 932 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1996, no writ). When reviewing a no evidence point, we review only the evidence tending to support the jury verdict and disregard all evidence to the contrary. Sherman v. First Nat'l Bank, 760 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Tex. 1988). If more than a scintilla of evidence supports the jury finding, it must be upheld. Garcia v. Insurance Co. of State of Pa., 751 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Tex. 1988). Thus, we consider the evidence and inferences as they tend to support the verdict and not with a view toward supporting the judgment.
The Stewarts complain the court erred in finding there was no evidence to support the jury's finding that the Eagles knew or reasonably should have known of the dangerous condition. To succeed in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that an owner/operator has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998).
In slip-and-fall cases, the courts have required that the actual or constructive knowledge requirement be met in one of three ways. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 265 (Tex. 1992). An invitee may prove: (1) that the owner/operator put the foreign substance on the floor; (2) that the owner/operator knew that it was on the floor and negligently failed to remove it; or (3) that the substance was on the floor so long that, in the exercise of ordinary care, it should have been discovered and removed. Id.
In the present case, the Stewarts do not claim the Eagles put the water on the floor and thus caused Leola to slip and fall. There was no evidence the Eagles created the condition on the floor or that someone told them about it. The Stewarts must therefore rely on the third method of proving actual or constructive knowledge; they had to prove the dangerous condition had been present for a sufficient length of time that a reasonable owner/operator would have discovered the condition. Id. at 265; Richardson v. Wal-Mart, Inc. 963 S.W.2d 162, 165 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1998, no pet.).
The record reveals Leola Stewart slipped and fell at a bingo hall owned and operated by the Eagles. She and her husband Stanley sued the Eagles to recover damages for negligence based upon the duty the Eagles owed to Leola as an invitee on the premises. The jury found Leola was 40% responsible for the accident and awarded her and her husband damages. The trial court granted the Eagles' JNOV and found there was no evidence of part (b) of question one of the court's charge which provides the Eagles knew or reasonably should have known of the danger.
Leola testified she entered the bingo hall at about 6:45 p.m. on the evening she fell. It was not raining at the time, but had rained that day and the day before. Upon coming through the door, Leola walked across a door mat that was placed inside of and adjacent to
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|