Qusetion: SANDRA MORRIS V. WALMART STORES, INC. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT

FACTS: On September 27, 1998, the Plaintiff and her husband, Michael Morris, were shopping in the defendant's Sam's Club when the plaintiff slipped and fell on a substance thought to be water next to a small portable freezer known as a spot box. After the fall, some of the defendant's employees approached to lend the Plaintiff assistance. At this point, the Plaintiff noticed that her clothes were soaked in what she believed to be water from the nearby freezer. When the store manager arrived at the scene, he ordered the water to be cleaned up. He pointed out to the Plaintiff and her husband that the plug in the bottom of the freezer was out. The Plaintiff testifi ed that the store manager additionally said that the spot box was new and that he feared it might not be functioning properly. As a result of her injury, the Plaintiff was severely bruised and advised to stay in bed and off of her feet for a week. The Plaintiff subsequently fi led suit against the defendant in Shelby County, Tennessee. The defendant removed the matter to District Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Following the Plaintiff's case-in-chief, the defendant moved for a judgment as to law, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the defendant had notice of the water, and that the Plaintiff could not rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The Plaintiff argued that she was not attempting to and could not show notice. She claimed instead that she provided evidence that the defendant created a dangerous condition by placing the new spot box out without a plug in it, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied. The District Court granted the defendant's motion. The Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE: Should a plaintiff be allowed to use resipsa loquitur to recover from injuries suffered by a defendant's malfunctioning product?

REASONING: A plaintiff should be allowed to use res ipsa loquitur to allow the jury to infer negligence when the plaintiff can demonstrate two conditions. First, the plaintiff was injured by an instrumentality that was within the defendant's exclusive control; second, the injury would not ordinarily have occurred in the absence of negligence. To satisfy the fi rst condition, Tennessee courts require that establishing "exclusive control" involves proving the defendant had a duty of care over the instrument that caused the harm. This standard should not be applied strictly because then the standard would become overly restrictive. Instead, showing that the negligence was more likely than not that of the defendant and not another person will satisfy this condition. The second condition would be satisfi ed if the plaintiff proves that the injury more likely than not occurred because of some negligent conduct. This standard does not require all possible alternatives to be disproved.

The defendant moved for a judgment as to law, which required the trial court to look at the evidence in the most favorable light possible to the nonmoving party, the plaintiff. If a reasonable jury could fi nd in favor of the plaintiff after evaluating all the evidence, then the trial court's granting of the motion was in error. In this case, the plaintiff provided evidence that the manager believed that the freezer was malfunctioning and subsequently wanted to remove it from the public space, that the freezer did not have a plug properly installed, and that the substance that she slipped on was likely water emanating from the freezer. The evidence regarding where the liquid was from was corroborated by the plaintiff's written statement at the scene as well as the testimony of the employee tasked with cleaning the liquid, who said that the water was about 10 inches in diameter and "right there under the drain of the freezer." This evidence would be suffi cient to allow a reasonable jury to fi nd both elements of res ipsa loquitur satisfi ed and infer negligence on the part of the defendant.

DECISION AND REMEDY: The court reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant and ordered a new trial at which res ipsa loquitur may be used.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case provides an illustration of the type of conditions that can lead a jury to infer negligence.

CRITICAL THINKING: Given a negligence action like this one, what evidence could the defendant provide that might convince a jury not to find the defendant negligent?

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING: How does the court's ruling demonstrate that the law is based on the ethical concern for future customers of business firms?