Summary
The Fourth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a premises-liability action arising from Jonathan Lewis’s fall on a wet, chemically treated parking-lot surface at a Circle K store. The court held that whether the hazard was open and obvious and whether Circle K breached its duty presented factual questions for the jury, and that expert testimony was not necessarily required to establish causation for the slip-and-fall injury. The court also vacated the district court’s Daubert and spoliation rulings for reconsideration on remand.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the ground that the slippery condition was open and obvious as a matter of law.
- Whether summary judgment was proper because Lewis lacked evidence that Circle K could reasonably foresee the danger created by its cleaning activities.
- Whether South Carolina law required expert testimony to establish causation between Lewis's slip and his patellar tendon rupture.
- Whether the district court's Daubert and spoliation rulings should remain in place after the summary-judgment ruling was vacated.
Holdings
- The wet concrete and the possible presence of chemical cleaning agents did not establish an open-and-obvious danger as a matter of law. Genuine disputes remained concerning whether a reasonable invitee could perceive that Circle K was using chemical products that created an unusually slippery condition, and those disputes had to be resolved by a jury.
- Circle K was not entitled to summary judgment on breach or foreseeability because genuine disputes existed about whether it exercised reasonable care, whether the chemical cleaning condition was hidden, and whether adequate protective measures or warnings were required under the circumstances.
- South Carolina law did not require Lewis to present expert testimony to establish causation because the causal connection between slipping, buckling and twisting the leg, and immediately experiencing a popping sensation and severe pain was within ordinary human experience.
- The district court's Daubert and spoliation determinations were vacated because the district court had resolved them concurrently with summary judgment in a single order, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key quotations
“In order to warrant summary judgment, a store owner must either show that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether (1) the hazard is so obvious that no reasonable invitee would stumble upon it or (2) the owner took sufficient affirmative steps to flag the danger to invitees.” (9-10)
“The slip-and-fall is among the most foundational and understandable injuries. If we required expert testimony in this case, we would steal from the jury one of its principal functions and remove from tort law the everyday experience of man.” (11)
Factual background
Lewis slipped on a painted parking-lot line outside a Circle K in Myrtle Beach while an employee was cleaning with water and powdered concrete cleaner. The employee wore a standard uniform but no required reflective vest, and there were no signs, cones, or other warnings that cleaning was underway. Lewis fell, ruptured his patellar tendon, required surgery, incurred approximately $430,000 in medical expenses, and was assessed with a seven-percent permanent impairment. Before Lewis's expert could measure the original surface's coefficient of friction, a contractor repainted the parking-lot stripes during what Circle K characterized as routine maintenance.
Procedural history
Lewis sued Circle K in South Carolina state court in November 2022, alleging that Circle K created or should have known of a slippery parking-lot condition and failed to remedy or warn of it. Circle K removed the action to the District of South Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). After discovery, the district court granted Circle K summary judgment, denied Lewis's Daubert motion and spoliation motion, and Lewis timely appealed. The Fourth Circuit reversed the summary-judgment ruling in part, vacated the Daubert and spoliation rulings, and remanded.
Remand instructions
Reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Circle K, vacate the concurrent Daubert and spoliation determinations, and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On remand, the district court should evaluate the spoliation issue under Silvestri and Hodge and reconsider the expert-testimony issues in the context of the proceedings.