Nakia Hampton v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Publix Super Markets, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the denial of its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The court held that Publix had not shown newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or clear error or manifest injustice. The court concluded that genuine disputes remained regarding Publix's actual knowledge of the hazardous condition and the source of the liquid, leaving those issues for a jury.

Holdings

1. Publix did not establish newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration of the prior denial of summary judgment.
2. The evidence did not establish as an undisputed fact when or where the liquid first appeared or where the water originated; therefore, the court properly denied summary judgment and left the water's source for the jury.
3. Reconsideration was not warranted as to vicarious liability because the court denied summary judgment on that issue on the same grounds.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Publix established grounds for reconsideration of the prior denial of summary judgment.
2. Whether the evidence concerning Publix's actual knowledge of the hazard and the source of the water presented a genuine dispute of material fact.
3. Whether summary judgment was properly denied on Hampton's vicarious-liability claim.

Disposition

dismissed