West Liberty University Board of Governors v. Stewart Lane

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed pretrial rulings and the denial of a renewed motion for costs in a premises-liability action arising from injuries caused by a falling poolside basketball hoop at West Liberty University. The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment under the open-and-obvious doctrine and upheld limitations on evidence concerning the disposed-of hoop based on spoliation. The court declined to review several trial-related assignments of error because the defendants did not file a motion for a new trial.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was properly denied because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether the dangerous condition was open, obvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to Lane as to the University defendants.
2. The circuit court acted within its discretion in limiting testimony about whether the particular hoop had been safely assembled because defendants disposed of the hoop and thereby caused its unavailability for inspection.
3. Defendants waived any objection to the lack of a spoliation-instruction hearing by failing to object, and the absence of a hearing caused no prejudice because no spoliation instruction was given.
4. Defendants waived these assignments of error because the circuit court ruled on the matters at trial and defendants did not file a motion for a new trial.
5. The circuit court properly denied Lane's renewed motion for costs because he failed to identify the procedural rule or other legal authority under which he sought relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the open-and-obvious doctrine required summary judgment for the University defendants in Lane's premises-liability action.
2. Whether the circuit court properly limited evidence concerning the safety and assembly of the basketball hoop after defendants disposed of it.
3. Whether defendants waived challenges to trial rulings concerning post-accident investigation evidence and expert testimony by failing to move for a new trial.
4. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Lane's renewed motion for additional costs because the motion did not identify the procedural rule or legal authority supporting relief.

Disposition

affirmed