Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

(312) 376-3812

Slip and fall cases: What qualifies as sufficient evidence?

slip_and_fall

You recall an injury sustained by a fall you took in the parking lot of a big-box store and you’re trying to prove that it was the store’s fault. What evidence will be sufficient in court? Well, that question is difficult because, like most negligence cases, there usually is not a single piece of evidence that conclusively shows fault. Recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the burden of proof a plaintiff must furnish to prevail. But, because the plaintiff’s case was unsuccessful the analysis by the court merely leaves practitioners with a list of possible ways in which evidence is insufficient.

In Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc, the court of appeals held that: (1) customers must show that placement of the injury-causing object was due to the store owner’s negligence, and (2) that the store owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused his/her injuries. The holding relied on precedent found in Zuppardi that required a plaintiff to show that “the foreign substance was related to the defendant’s business and (2) “offer some further evidence, direct or circumstantial, however slight, such as the location of the substance or the business practices of the defendant, from which it could be inferred that it was more likely that defendant or his servants, rather than a customer, dropped the substance on the premises.” The Zuppardi court goes on to give a lengthy list of all the events that could have set forth sufficient evidence. But, it may be misplaced to concluded that showing one of the hypotheticals would have been dispositive to the Zuppadri’s case.

Both holdings suggest that the court is looking for evidence that specifically provides a way in which the defendant caused the harmful condition, not merely speculation. In both cases the plaintiffs only demonstrated possible ways in which the conditions could have been created. This was insufficient. In short, a plaintiff must show either (1) the defendant negligence caused dangerous condition; or (2) the defendant had actual notice of condition and did nothing; or (3) the defendant had constructive awareness of the condition and did nothing. This is a high bar.

Partial Cause v. Sole Cause: Why your insurance company can’t shift the burden to you

Questionnaire

Imagine going out to play a game of basketball with your crew. In the heat of the game you tear your Achilles tendon. You’re in pain, but you can rest knowing that your insurance will cover the surgery.

Six days later you have a routine and “uneventful” surgery to repair the tendon and you’re discharged on the same day. However, a couple of weeks later, and after a follow-up with your doctor, you collapse at work, go into cardiopulmonary arrest, and die.

The representative, and beneficiary, of your estate files a claim with your insurance company that purports to provide accidental death and dismemberment coverage for the company’s employees, in the amount of $92,000. However, they deny the claim because your late spouse’s coverage is limited to “bodily injuries. . . that result directly from an accident and independently of all other causes.” The insurance company argues that the basketball player’s death was not the exclusive result of the accident, but additional complications at surgery caused the death. Your representative sues the insurance company on a causation theory—but if not for the Achilles tendon accident, that required surgery, your spouse would not have died.

In a recent case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with this exact scenario. The lower court ruled in favor of the insurance company, but the 7th Circuit panel was not convinced that that was the right outcome. Judge Posner, writing for the court, explained that the evidence suggesting that the basketball player’s death was caused by a blood clot was inconclusive—it did not show that the blood clot was an independent cause, but merely a partial cause of the ball players death. The court focused on the chain of events that led to the ball player’s death. It concluded that the blood clot was “partial because the accident had to have played a role; no accident, no surgery or immobilization, hence no deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (blood clot).”

The court struck down the insurer’s arguments that the beneficiary had to prove that no other events played a role, and that the company had the “discretion to decide what evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a disability.” The court wrote that such burden of proof and discretion is illusory because it would give the insurance company unchecked carte blanche to decide whether to honor its contract.

Because the insurance company failed to make any plausible showing that the surgery, rather than the accident that necessitated the surgery, caused the basketball players death, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the judgment should have been in favor of the plaintiff beneficiary.

Heeding the fine print: Belot v. LTF Club Operations Co., Inc

On January 1st, many anxious and determined individuals stepped into health clubs across Illinois to embark on one of the most common New Year’s Resolutions—lose weight and get in-shape. Several clubs will market the opportunity for business by giving away free day or week guest passes to a potential new comer and/or repeat customers. However, before you step-foot into one of these big-box sweat machines to redeem your free guest pass, take a moment to read the fine print; and do not deviate from its instruction(s).

Four months ago, a district court judge ruled that the plaintiff (gym guest) was legally a trespasser when he tripped over some cables and injured himself at Life Time Fitness Club in an Illinois Suburb and, therefore, could not hold the defendant-company liable. Mr. Belot, the plaintiff, went into a local Lifetime Fitness to check out the facility. He waited to be greeted at the front desk, but no one was there. He decided to take a self-guided tour and in doing so tripped over a few cords while trying to test an elliptical machine.

The court emphasized that one’s status as an invitee can changed if he or she fails to satisfy any condition set forth in the invitation. The court conceded that the “[p]laintiff was arguably an invitee when he entered the gym: he received a guest pass in the mail, which was an express invitation, and the purpose of that invitation was ultimately to enroll him as a gym member, which is directly related to Defendants’ business.” However, the court continued its analysis and explained that “invitees may nonetheless lose their status and become trespassers when, after being invited onto the premises, they go to an area beyond the scope of an invitation or otherwise deviate from conditions of that invitation.”

The court held that Mr. Belot went beyond the scope of the guest pass when he ignored a clause in the invitation that required all guests to present a photo ID and take a membership tour. Therefore, he could not hold Life Time Fitness liable for the injuries he sustained while on his exploration of the facility.

Recent Posts