Williams v. GK Mahavir Inc.

The trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that the hotel did not have constructive knowledge of the substance on the floor of the lobby, since a factual issue remained as to whether the hotel neglected its duty to perform a reasonable inspection of the lobby.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In this slip and fall case, Vanessa Williams appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of GK Mahavir, Inc. d/b/a Best Western Dawson Village Inn “Best Western”. Williams contends the trial court erred by determining: that Best Western did not cause the slip and fall which resulted in her injury, that she failed to show that Best Western had actual or constructive knowledge of a substance on the floor, and that Best Western discharged its burden on the issue of actual or constructive knowledge of a substance on the floor. For the reasons that follow, we reverse. “On appeal from the grant of summary judgment this court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.”1

The record shows that on the day of the incident, Williams and her two sons walked from their hotel room to the hotel lobby, in search of the swimming pool. They walked through the lobby area until they reached a door through which Williams looked to determine whether they could get to the pool. Williams then turned to go another route, and she slipped and fell on a substance that appeared to be water. Williams deposed that she did not know the source of the water on which she had slipped, but that after her fall she saw water underneath a nearby table in the kitchen and dining area and thought the water came from there. Williams deposed that she was watching where she was walking, but did not see the substance on the floor before she fell.

Williams v. GK Mahavir Inc.

The trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that the hotel did not have constructive knowledge of the substance on the floor of the lobby, since a factual issue remained as to whether the hotel neglected its duty to perform a reasonable inspection of the lobby.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report