 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trennel v. MetroHealth System10/27/2005
and that area was "marked" width-wise at each entrance with a rolled-up sheet which reached approximately five feet across the floor. Appellant saw a floor-buffing machine in the work area; the machine had a bottle of liquid floor wax near it.
{ } She preceded her husband, walking carefully on the right side of the hallway in her rubber-soled shoes, because she could see she was adjacent to a work area; nevertheless, her foot hit something slippery and she fell, causing injury to her ankle. While she was on the floor, she saw she had slipped in a small "puddle" of liquid floor wax which had seeped out of the work area.
The wax was clear in color, and, only while on the floor could she notice it was not the only such puddle in the walkway area.
{ } Wallace testified in his deposition that such a set-up was common for floors that were in the process of being stripped of the old wax, and, ordinarily, two workers were assigned to do the process. He admitted that a check of work records indicated only one worker had been assigned to that task that evening. He further admitted that one worker should stay there while the other took his break.
{ } Additionally, Wallace admitted that when the new wax was poured, it was wet-mopped to spread it, then had to be let dry for approximately 45 minutes. Lengthwise sheets could not be placed because they had the potential to become soaked with spreading floor wax and becoming entangled in the floor-buffer machine. Finally, he indicated that it was procedure to place a "wet floor" sign near such work areas. Appellant did not indicate she saw such a sign.
{ } Thus, appellant did not rest upon the allegations of her complaint, but, in response to appellee's motion, provided evidence which raised issues of material fact concerning: 1) whether the condition of clear floor wax seeping into the area apparently marked for safe travel was "open and obvious;" 2) whether, under the circumstances, appellee had a duty to warn of a dangerous condition possibly existing in the walkway, an area that seemed to be set off as an invitation for safe travel; 3) whether appellee breached a duty by not having another worker at the location, either to remedy the seepage or to watch the work area and to warn the visitors using the walkway; 4) whether appellant "assumed the risk" by walking in an area which seemed to be marked for safe travel even though the area next to it was being serviced; and, 5) whether appellant used reasonable care for her own safety. Texler, supra.
{ } The record, therefore, does not support the trial court's action. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is sustained.
{ } The trial court's order is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings.
This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee costs herein.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KENNETH A. ROCCO JUDGE
JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J. and CHRISTINE T. McMONAGLE, J. CONCUR
|