Matthew Waters and Vicky Waters v. Paul Enterprises, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/04/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110683 Matthew Waters and V i c k y Waters v. Paul E n t e r p r i s e s , Inc. Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-901607) THOMAS, J u d g e . Matthew Waters and V i c k y judgment e n t e r e d by t h e M o b i l e Enterprises, Paul seeking Inc. ("Paul"), damages Waters appeal f r o m a summary C i r c u i t Court i n favor o f Paul i n the Waterses' action forinjuries Matthew against sustained as a 2110683 result of Paul's maintaining On driver alleged i t s l o a d i n g dock. September f o r Ace shipment negligent about f o u r inches reverse 11, 2008, Matthew Hardware. to Paul We 1 On that and h a d b a c k e d from Paul's Matthew's first trip was wanton actions he as a truck had d e l i v e r e d the d e l i v e r y truck l o a d i n g dock i n o r d e r to Paul's in and remand. working date the c o n t e n t s of the d e l i v e r y t r u c k . was and up a to to unload I t i s undisputed that i t loading dock and that M a t t h e w o b s e r v e d s e v e r a l P a u l e m p l o y e e s p l a c e two m e t a l p l a t e s upon t h e g r o u n d t o b r i d g e dock and the small the d e l i v e r y truck before contents of the d e l i v e r y truck. Paul the employees had been u s i n g gap for several gap b e t w e e n t h e he began loading to unload I t i s also undisputed t h e two m e t a l p l a t e s t o years because, the record ground t o bridge that bridge reveals, l o a d i n g d o c k l e v e r h a d n o t b e e n o p e r a t i o n a l s i n c e 2004. w a t c h i n g the Paul employees p l a c e the the After t h e two m e t a l p l a t e s on t h e t h e gap, M a t t h e w i n q u i r e d a b o u t t h e u s a g e o f t h e m e t a l p l a t e s and t h e n p r o c e e d e d t o u n l o a d s e v e r a l l o a d s o f inventory from the d e l i v e r y t r u c k t o t h e l o a d i n g dock by u s i n g a "pallet jack." Paul Mobile. i s an Ace 1 However, on M a t t h e w ' s f o u r t h o r f i f t h Hardware franchisee 2 doing trip business i n 2110683 across the metal plates w h i c h he was w a l k i n g out from his and t h e m e t a l p l a t e s s h i f t e d and s l i p p e d underneath injuries. he q u i c k l y c h a n g e d t h e d i r e c t i o n i n him, c a u s i n g him t o f a l l and sustain M a t t h e w s o u g h t m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n as t h e r e s u l t o f injuries. On A u g u s t 19, 2009, t h e W a t e r s e s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n t h e trial c o u r t a v e r r i n g t h a t P a u l and s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y parties had been n e g l i g e n t loading dock maintaining contained and by utilizing metal a functional loading a loss-of-consortium S e p t e m b e r 23, 2009, P a u l numerous and wanton i n m a i n t a i n i n g affirmative plates dock. named Paul's i n lieu The c o m p l a i n t c l a i m on b e h a l f of Vicky. of also On answered t h e c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t e d defenses. The parties conducted discovery. On S e p t e m b e r 28, 2011, P a u l judgment. I n i t s motion, metal p l a t e s to bridge the loading said, argued that t h e use o f t h e t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e d e l i v e r y t r u c k a n d d o c k was an open a n d o b v i o u s d a n g e r , w h i c h , i t Matthew reasonable Paul f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary should care. have I t also recognized argued that i n the exercise i t h a d no knowledge t h a t t h e m e t a l p l a t e s c o u l d s h i f t 3 of superior and, t h u s , t h a t i t 2110683 c o u l d not excerpts have w a r n e d M a t t h e w o f s u c h a r i s k . On November 15, opposition response, the 2011, motion. argued usage Waterses was fact an regarding obvious the Waterses f i l e d a response summary-judgment have b e e n open b u t material plates to the p l a t e s may of attached f r o m M a t t h e w ' s d e p o s i t i o n t o i t s m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment. in Paul that that there whether danger. the The their the metal were g e n u i n e the In issues usage Waterses of of affidavit and deposition testimony Waterses' expert witness; Robert Matthew's Zarzour, corporate the of Dr. On judgment January in Specifically, 11, favor the 2012, of trial the Paul trial on court's court a l l the the testimony Dr. of and the response. entered a summary Waterses' claims. judgment s t a t e s : "[T]he Court i s of the o p i n i o n t h a t the metal p l a t e s as p l a c e d and o b s e r v e d by [ M a t t h e w ] c o n s t i t u t e d an open and o b v i o u s c o n d i t i o n on [ P a u l ] ' s property which [Matthew], i n the e x e r c i s e of reasonable care, s h o u l d have r e c o g n i z e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f o r t h i n [ P a u l ] ' s M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment, t h e m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y g r a n t e d 4 the James Dobbs, physician; c o m p l a i n t as e x h i b i t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r the deposition representative; deposition treating metal attached a f f i d a v i t and d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f M a t t h e w ; t h e t e s t i m o n y of R a l p h P a u l , Paul's the 2110683 and t h e C o u r t e n t e r s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f [ P a u l ] on a l l claims." On alter, February amend, February 14, postjudgment supreme 8, or 2012, vacate 2012, the motion. court, which the the trial trial The Waterses court's court Waterses transferred p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code filed denied timely the a motion judgment. the to On Waterses' appealed appeal this to novo. American 825 So. 2d 786 "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " In r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Architects, Prop. P.C.], & 792 Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 5 our court 1975. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, (Ala. 2002). to 2110683 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." Potter v. First Real Estate Co., 844 So. in 2d American 540, 545 (Ala. court erred 2002). On in appeal, entering claims the Waterses argue t h a t the t r i a l a summary because, they judgment contend, in favor there of Paul on were g e n u i n e their issues of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g whether the usage of the m e t a l p l a t e s was an open and the fact could that not plates Dr. have and briefly" obvious danger. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they h i g h l i g h t Dobbs's a f f i d a v i t appreciated the danger p l a t e s and t h a t t h e p l a t e s p o s e d any t h a t the t r i a l the metal "only t h a t he danger." " d i d not c o u r t d i d not e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g because, i t says, obvious i s evaluated whether u n d e r an by appreciate In response, P a u l l a w t h a t t h e u s a g e o f t h e m e t a l p l a t e s was danger posed Matthew i n d i c a t e d t h a t he t h a t Matthew's a f f i d a v i t n o t i c e d the indicates that a argues as a m a t t e r an open and condition is objective standard of obvious open and, and thus, " t h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r t h e d a n g e r s h o u l d have b e e n o b s e r v e d , not Food whether Co. v. in fact i t was Shipman, 981 consciously So. 2d 355, appreciated." 362 (Ala. Jones 2006). Moreover, i t again argues t h a t the evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t 6 2110683 lacked any Matthew's superior knowledge of the danger that caused injuries. I n t h i s c a s e , M a t t h e w was an i n v i t e e when he b e g a n the metal plates Lamson & S e s s i o n s So. 388, 391 invitee and l o a d i n g dock at Paul's B o l t Co. v. M c C a r t y , (1937) (finding that using facility. 234 A l a . See 60, 63, 173 a d e l i v e r y d r i v e r was an a t the time of the a c c i d e n t ) . The w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e i s t h a t an i n v i t o r owes a d u t y t o an i n v i t e e t o keep i t s premises i n a reasonably s a f e c o n d i t i o n a n d t o warn an i n v i t e e o f any d a n g e r a b o u t w h i c h t h e i n v i t o r h a s a s u p e r i o r k n o w l e d g e or that Quillen i s n o t open v. Q u i l l e n , and o b v i o u s . 388 So. 2d Id. 985, 989 Specifically, in ( A l a . 1980), our supreme c o u r t d i s c u s s e d t h e d u t y an i n v i t o r owes t o an i n v i t e e as follows: " I n t h e d e f i n i t i v e c a s e o f Lamson & S e s s i o n s B o l t Co. v. M c C a r t y , 234 A l a . 60, 173 So. 388 ( 1 9 3 7 ) , t h i s C o u r t d i s c u s s e d a t l e n g t h t h e d u t y owed by a l a n d o w n e r t o an i n v i t e e . A t 234 A l a . 63, 173 So. 391, t h e C o u r t h e l d : "'This court i s f i r m l y committed t o the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the occupant of premises is bound t o use reasonable care and d i l i g e n c e t o keep t h e p r e m i s e s i n a s a f e c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e a c c e s s o f p e r s o n s who come t h e r e o n b y h i s i n v i t a t i o n , e x p r e s s e d or implied, f o r the transaction of business, or f o r any other purpose 7 2110683 b e n e f i c i a l to him; or, i f h i s premises are i n any r e s p e c t d a n g e r o u s , he must g i v e s u c h v i s i t o r s s u f f i c i e n t w a r n i n g of the danger t o e n a b l e them, by t h e use o f o r d i n a r y c a r e , t o a v o i d i t . G e i s v. T e n n e s s e e C o a l , I r o n & R.R. Co., 143 A l a . 299, 39 So. 301 [(1905)]. " ' T h i s r u l e ... i n c l u d e s (a) t h e d u t y t o warn an i n v i t e e o f d a n g e r , o f w h i c h he knows, o r o u g h t t o know, and o f w h i c h t h e i n v i t e e i s i g n o r a n t ; and (b) t h e d u t y t o use r e a s o n a b l e c a r e t o have t h e p r e m i s e s t o w h i c h he i s i n v i t e d i n a r e a s o n a b l y s a f e c o n d i t i o n f o r s u c h c o n t e m p l a t e d u s e s , and w i t h i n the contemplated i n v i t a t i o n . ' " T h e r e f o r e , as a g e n e r a l r u l e , an i n v i t o r w i l l n o t be l i a b l e f o r i n j u r i e s t o an i n v i t e e r e s u l t i n g f r o m a d a n g e r w h i c h was known t o t h e i n v i t e e o r s h o u l d have b e e n o b s e r v e d by t h e i n v i t e e i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . As s t a t e d by t h e C o u r t i n Lamson & S e s s i o n s B o l t Co., s u p r a , a t 234 A l a . 63, 173 So. 391: " ' I n 45 C . J . § 244, p. 837, t h e r u l e i s t h u s s t a t e d : "The d u t y t o keep p r e m i s e s safe f o r i n v i t e e s a p p l i e s o n l y to the d e f e c t s or c o n d i t i o n s which are i n the nature of hidden dangers, t r a p s , snares, p i t f a l l s , and t h e l i k e , i n t h a t t h e y a r e n o t known t o t h e i n v i t e e , and w o u l d n o t be o b s e r v e d by h i m i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f o r d i n a r y c a r e . The i n v i t e e assumes a l l n o r m a l o r o r d i n a r y r i s k s a t t e n d a n t upon t h e use o f t h e p r e m i s e s , and t h e owner o r o c c u p a n t i s u n d e r no d u t y t o r e c o n s t r u c t o r a l t e r t h e p r e m i s e s so as t o o b v i a t e known and o b v i o u s d a n g e r s , n o r i s he l i a b l e f o r i n j u r y t o an i n v i t e e r e s u l t i n g f r o m a d a n g e r w h i c h was o b v i o u s o r s h o u l d have b e e n o b s e r v e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e of reasonable care."' 8 2110683 " A c c o r d , McRee v. Woodward I r o n Co., 279 A l a . 88, 182 So. 2d 209 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; C l a y b r o o k e v. B e n t l y , 260 A 678 Ala. 678, 72 So. 2d 412 ( 1 9 5 4 ) . The e n t i r e b a s i s o f So. an i n v i t o r ' s liability r e s t s upon h i s s u p e r i o r knowledge of the danger which causes the i n v i t e e ' s i n j u r i e s . G r a y v. M o b i l e G r e y h o u n d P a r k , L t d . , 370 So. 2d 1384 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; T i c e v. T i c e , 361 So. 2d 1051 ( A l a . 1978) . T h e r e f o r e , i f that superior k n o w l e d g e i s l a c k i n g , as when t h e d a n g e r i s o b v i o u s , t h e i n v i t o r c a n n o t be h e l d l i a b l e . " T h i s c o u r t i n S h e i k h v. L a k e s h o r e 1055, law 1059 the ( A l a . C i v . App. i s s u e whether analyzed under premises liability exercised by an the a Foundation, 64 So. 2010), i n d i c a t e d t h a t under Alabama condition objective i s open standard. and "[T]he obvious focus l a w i s n o t on t h e c a r e t h a t may invitee 3d ... , but on relieving of is our have b e e n a premises owner o f a l e g a l l i a b i l i t y where an i n v i t e e knew o f t h e d a n g e r that caused the injury or s h o u l d have o b s e r v e d that t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . " Ex p a r t e Distrib. S e r v s . Warehouse, I n c . , 709 So. 2d 16, danger Industrial 20-21 (Ala. 1997). However, o u r supreme c o u r t has also stated: "'A c o n d i t i o n i s " o b v i o u s " i f t h e r i s k i s a p p a r e n t t o , and o f t h e t y p e t h a t w o u l d be r e c o g n i z e d by, a reasonable person i n the p o s i t i o n of the i n v i t e e . ' Woodward [v. H e a l t h C a r e A u t h . o f H u n t s v i l l e ] , 727 So. 2d [814,] 816 [ ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998)]. 'A c o n d i t i o n i s "known" i f t h e i n v i t e e i s aware o f t h e 9 2110683 e x i s t e n c e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n and a p p r e c i a t e s t h e danger i t i n v o l v e s . ' I d . 'Questions o f openness and obviousness o f a d e f e c t o r d a n g e r a n d o f an [invitee's] knowledge a r e g e n e r a l l y n o t t o be r e s o l v e d on a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . ' H a r d i n g v. P i e r c e H a r d y R e a l E s t a t e , 628 So. 2d 4 6 1 , 463 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . See a l s o Woodward, s u p r a . A d d i t i o n a l l y , ' t h i s C o u r t has i n d i c a t e d t h a t even though a d e f e c t i s open a n d o b v i o u s , an i n j u r e d i n v i t e e i s n o t b a r r e d f r o m r e c o v e r y where t h e i n v i t e e , acting reasonably, d i d n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h e danger o f t h e d e f e c t . ' Young v . L a Q u i n t a I n n s , I n c . , 682 So. 2d 402, 404 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . " ¢ v l , , ^ ^ 4 - - ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Ex p a r t e K r a a t z , 775 So. 2d 801, -I- ^ 4-1-,^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 803-04 ( A l a . 2000) -P 4-1-,^ (emphasis added). In t h e p r e s e n t case, P a u l p r e s e n t e d evidence that Matthew plates observed on t h e g r o u n d the Paul employees place indicating two m e t a l t o b r i d g e t h e gap b e t w e e n t h e d e l i v e r y t r u c k and the l o a d i n g dock d u r i n g d a y l i g h t h o u r s , t h a t Matthew i n q u i r e d about t h e broken l o a d i n g - d o c k l e v e r and t h e usage o f the metal plates plates, several and t h a t Matthew w a l k e d times before during the process delivery truck evidence demonstrating that material fact i t was e n t i t l e d and t h a t the accident. there across the metal of unloading the Thus, Paul presented was no g e n u i n e issue of t o a judgment as a matter o f law because t h e u n d i s p u t e d evidence i n d i c a t e d t h e u s a g e o f t h e m e t a l p l a t e s was an open a n d o b v i o u s 10 that danger 2110683 that Matthew should have observed r e a s o n a b l e care under t h e standard 2d a t 989. Accordingly, in the exercise of s e t o u t i n Q u i l l e n , 388 So. the burden s h i f t e d t o the Waterses, the nonmovants, t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t i n g that there Paul's 1036, was a genuine issue of material fact regarding d u t y t o M a t t h e w . See L e e v. C i t y o f Gadsden, 592 So. 2d 1038 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . In exhibits. their response, the Specifically, they that states, i n pertinent Waterses attached attached numerous Matthew's affidavit part: "3. On [September 11, 2 0 0 8 ] , I h a d no k n o w l e d g e about t h e l o a d i n g or u n l o a d i n g system i n p l a c e by [ P a u l ] . When I a r r i v e d , I w a t c h e d two w o r k e r s p u t down m e t a l p l a t e s b u t I d i d n o t know t h e p r e c i s e w e i g h t , s i z e o r w h e t h e r t h e s e [ ] m e t a l p l a t e s were s e c u r e d . I assumed t h a t t h e m e t a l p l a t e s w o u l d be s e c u r e o r were s a f e b a s e d on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r a c t i o n s of the workers there. "4. I saw t h e p l a t e s o n l y b r i e f l y a n d so d i d n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h e p l a t e s p o s e d any d a n g e r a t t h e time. That i s , from t h e time I opened t h e back door o f my t r a i l e r a n d t h e moment i t t o o k t h e [ P a u l ] w o r k e r s t o p u t t h e p l a t e s down a n d f o r me t o s e e them do t h a t , we t h e n s t a r t e d u n l o a d i n g . I t a p p e a r e d t h a t these workers had used these metal p l a t e s t o b r i d g e t h e gap b e t w e e n v a r i o u s t r a i l e r s a n d t h e l o a d i n g dock f o r a v e r y l o n g time. "5. I assumed t h a t t h e s e w o r k e r s h a d u s e d t h e s e p l a t e s f o r a w h i l e a n d t h a t t h e y were s a f e . I d i d n o t a p p r e c i a t e t h a t t h e s e w o r k e r s w o u l d p u t me i n a 11 2110683 d a n g e r o u s s i t u a t i o n . I a l s o assumed t h a t maybe t h e s e m e t a l p l a t e s were somehow s e c u r e . A t t h e t i m e , I d i d not a p p r e c i a t e the dangerous s i t u a t i o n t h i s metal b r i d g e p o s e d f o r me t o s t e p o r p i v o t on." A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e W a t e r s e s a t t a c h e d Dr. Dobbs's a f f i d a v i t and d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y , w h i c h i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n h i s as a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r , M a t t h e w c o u l d n o t have the risk and d a n g e r p o s e d by explained that his plates issue thus, at that the metal c a l c u l a t i o n s had had t h e y had a c o e f f i c i e n t of a propensity to c e r t a i n t y p e o f h o r i z o n t a l f o r c e was the force Dr. applied Dobbs appreciated noted the slide an average and Dobbs that i t the metal .33 shift and, when a p p l i e d t o them, s u c h could not between the any i n c i d e n t , and, "had a reason delivery trucks of the metal appeared to thus, know he that and the plates Furthermore, that Paul hazardous." 12 had the l o a d i n g dock w i t h o u t s t a t e d , n e i t h e r P a u l nor these as have c o n s i s t e n t l y u s e d t h e m e t a l p l a t e s as t h e means t o b r i d g e gap a changed d i r e c t i o n . observer danger of the p r o p e n s i t y testified Dobbs of t o s l i d e b a s e d on t h e i r c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n . Dr. Dr. that friction when M a t t h e w a b r u p t l y that appreciated plates. revealed opinion [metal plates] Matthew could be 2110683 Finally, the Waterses attached testimony to t h e i r response. corporate the representative, metal p l a t e s been o p e r a t i o n a l the premises. since Ralph Paul's deposition In h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Ralph, Paul's t e s t i f i e d t h a t P a u l h a d been 2004 a n d t h a t using t h e dock l e v e r had not throughout the time t h a t Paul had occupied He f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t P a u l d i d n o t have any s u p e r i o r k n o w l e d g e o f any d a n g e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e u s a g e o f the m e t a l p l a t e s a t t h e time o f Matthew's Therefore, that, although placed on the the Waterses Matthew had ground, presented observed he did injury. evidence indicating the metal p l a t e s not appreciate being any risk a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e u s a g e o f t h e m e t a l p l a t e s due t o t h e P a u l e m p l o y e e s ' a c t i o n s and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s Further, they affidavit and d e p o s i t i o n have a p p r e c i a t e d of presented associated Accordingly, testimony indicating that v i a Dr. Matthew Dobbs's could not t h e r i s k and d a n g e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e u s a g e the metal p l a t e s danger expert on September 11, 2008. and t h a t with the Paul itself usage of was unaware the metal of the plates. t h e e v i d e n c e t a k e n i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the Waterses i n d i c a t e d t h a t Matthew, not a p p r e c i a t e " a c t i n g reasonably, [and c o u l d n o t have a p p r e c i a t e d ] 13 did the danger of 2110683 the d e f e c t " i n t h i s case parte Kraatz, Waterses there So. presented was danger 775 even p e r i o d i t had 2d a t 804. issue Paul used the of m a t e r i a l had not affirmance of i n v i t o r by c o n c l u d i n g unpainted f o r the trier for 757 2d So. court's concluding open and observed So. summary demonstrating over an of 1208 summary a obvious (reversing this in an open fact); and favor and obvious of ( A l a . C i v . App. judgment in c o n d i t i o n was danger the was Howard v. Andy's favor 2000) of t h a t whether the e l e v a t i o n of the obvious that four-year open and judgment the to whether the 2d a t 804 Ex t h a t t h e f a c t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t w h e t h e r an question trial a s p e e d bump was Men, conclude that f a c t as m e t a l p l a t e s was d a n g e r . See Ex p a r t e K r a a t z , 775 court's Thus, we s u b s t a n t i a l evidence a genuine that the usage of the m e t a l p l a t e s . a question a Store (reversing a the invitor sidewalk f o r the by was an trier of fact). Accordingly, because the Waterses presented substantial e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Matthew d i d not a p p r e c i a t e the danger a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e u s a g e o f t h e m e t a l p l a t e s and b e c a u s e plaintiff's question of a p p r e c i a t i o n of fact for the the danger i s , almost always, determination 14 "the of the [trier a of 2110683 f a c t ] , " F.W. So. W o o l w o r t h Co. v . B r a d b u r y , 2d 824, 827 (1962), we reverse 273 A l a . 392, 396, 140 t h e summary judgment i n f a v o r o f P a u l on t h e W a t e r s e s ' c l a i m s , and we remand t h e c a u s e for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , without 15 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.