Story v. Worden

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a circuit court order granting summary judgment in a premises-liability action arising from injuries caused by a glass storm door. The court held that disputed evidence concerning the door’s condition, the defendant’s knowledge, and foreseeability created genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was improper because the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the storm door was defective and whether Twentieth Street Bank knew or should have known that it presented a risk of injury.
2. The circuit court's scant findings were inadequate under Fayette County National Bank v. Lilly and unsupported by the record, but the case did not need to be remanded merely for additional findings because the existing record itself showed a disputed material fact requiring trial.
3. The plaintiff was not required at the summary judgment stage to show that it was specifically foreseeable that a five-year-old child would become angry, run to the storm door, and push on the glass; evidence that the circumstances reasonably suggested a need to repair the door was sufficient to create a jury question on foreseeability.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper when the record contained a genuine dispute regarding whether the storm door was defective and whether Twentieth Street Bank knew or should have known of the condition.
2. Whether the circuit court's summary judgment findings were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
3. Whether the child's specific conduct of becoming angry, running to the storm door, and pushing on the glass was so unforeseeable that it defeated the negligence claim as a matter of law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded