Defendant property owner was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip-and-fall claim where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the presence of glassy ice was an open and obvious danger that negated the duty of care.
December 30, 2016 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
Slip-and-Fall • Duty of Care • Open and Obvious Danger • Derivative Nature of Loss of Consortium Claim
Flook v. Jarrett, PICS Case No. 16-1595 (C.P. Lycoming Nov. 2016) Lovecchio, J. (6 pages).
Defendant property owner was not entitled to summary judgment in a slip-and-fall claim where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the presence of glassy ice was an open and obvious danger that negated the duty of care.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
This conference aims to help insurers and litigators better manage complex claims and litigation.
Recognizing innovation in the legal technology sector for working on precedent-setting, game-changing projects and initiatives.
McCarter and English s Chambers-ranked Government Contracts group is seeking an experienced, diligent, and proactive government contracts as...
McCarter & English, LLP is actively seeking a junior level commercial litigation associate admitted to practice in Connecticut, with a d...
McCarter & English, LLP is actively seeking a litigation associate for its office located in Hartford, CT. One to three years of experie...
