Appeals Court Splits Over Home Depot Slip and Fall
Plaintiff's lawyers are already at work on the next appeal of a case Chief Judge Stephen Dillard called "the poster child" for the difficulty court's face in applying the "distraction doctrine."
November 05, 2018 at 04:00 PM
4 minute read
A suit claiming a fall in a Home Depot ultimately caused a customer to lose his leg has caused a split on the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Judges Sara Doyle and Amanda Mercier affirmed the trial court's decision to throw out the lawsuit, but the third member of the panel, Chief Judge Stephen Dillard, wrote a partial dissent saying the case should go to a jury.
In Denis Weickert's own words, he was trying to “get in and get out” when he walked into a Home Depot garden center on the day he fell, May 21, 2014. He had been there many times before. On that day, he wanted a timer for his sprinkler. He immediately asked an employee at the cashier stand for help. The cashier started walking and told him to follow, which he did. Within five to 10 steps, he began slipping in a pool of water from the watering of plants. He landed on his right leg, which was so badly broken that it ultimately had to be amputated, according to the decision.
Weickert sued Home Depot for damages, including medical bills and lost wages. He argued he didn't know about the water on the floor and was distracted by following the cashier. Home Depot moved for summary judgment, arguing that the water was in plain view and caution signs were out. Cobb County State Court Judge John Morgan dismissed the lawsuit, granting summary judgment to Home Depot. Weickert appealed.
All the judges agreed that Home Depot employees knew about the water and had placed warning signs, which Weickert could have seen. “There is no evidence that the Home Depot employee continued to engage Weickert in conversation while walking him to the particular store aisle,” Doyle said. “Weickert then voluntarily chose to follow the employee so closely that he could not see around him. And while the employee walked through the water without pointing it out, the pictures show, and Weickert admits, that there was a 'wet floor' warning sign in the area where he fell, the expanse of water in the garden center was large, and Weickert knew from his numerous previous trips to the Home Depot that water collected in that area after the plants were watered.”
All of Weickert's choices were within his own control and could not be anticipated, Doyle said. “This is the linchpin of this and every distraction doctrine case,” Doyle said. “Not just any conduct of an employee becomes a distraction because a customer claims it is so. The distracting conduct must be in the control of the store owner and be of such a nature that it would necessarily divert a customer's attention.”
But Dillard saw it differently.
“This case is the poster child for the difficulty often faced by both trial and appellate courts in applying the 'distraction doctrine.' Indeed, to say that this doctrine is imprecise is the height of charity. Nevertheless, this Court must determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Weickert was distracted to such a degree that he is 'not bound to the same degree of care in discovering or apprehending danger,'” Dillard said.
“Here, the majority concludes that Home Depot is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the conversation between Weickert and its employee was induced and anticipated by Weickert. But to hold that a customer forfeits the possible protection of the distraction doctrine by asking for help from an employee ignores the duty owed by an owner/occupier to an invitee,” Dillard said.
Whether or not Home Depot might have anticipated that its employee's instructions to follow and the ensuing conversation would be a distraction while walking through pooled water “are questions for a jury,” Dillard said.
Home Depot was represented by Stephen Sparwath, Derrick Bingham and Ian Hall of Owen Gleaton Egan Jones & Sweeney. Sparwath said he needed to check with his client before commenting. Home Depot's corporate office did not have an immediate response.
Weickert's appellate counsel, Darren Summerville of the Summerville Firm, said Friday he and Maxwell Thelen of his office are already at work on a request for the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision.
The case is Weickert v. Home Depot, No. A18A0904.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Atlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250