Fourth Circuit Vacates and Remands Premises Liability Case

Last week, in an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded a decision by Magistrate Judge Crigler (W.D. Va.) granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in Strobel v. W.B.W. Enterprises, Inc. (the parties consented to a trial by the magistrate judge).

In Strobel, the plaintiff slipped and fell when she was exiting a farmer's market. She filed a negligence action based on premises liability against the company that managed the market alleging that she tripped over defective mats.

The Fourth Circuit analyzed the case as follows:

To prove negligence in a premises liability case, the plaintiff must first
prove the existence of an unsafe or dangerous condition on the premises.
Kendrick v. Vaz, Inc., 421 S.E.2d 447, 449 (Va. 1992). Mrs. Strobel
contends that the mats were defective because they had pre-existing distortions.
The Market contends that the record is devoid of evidence of the condition of
the floor mats immediately prior to Strobel’s fall. Assuming that the mats were
defective at the time of Strobel’s accident, she must also show that the defect
in the mats caused her to trip and fall. In Virginia, to prove a defendant’s
negligence, a plaintiff must prove “why and how the incident happened. . . . And
if the cause of the event is left to conjecture, guess, or random judgment, the
plaintiff cannot recover.” Town of West Point v. Evans, 299 S.E.2d 349, 351 (Va.
1983).

We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the mats were defective and whether they caused Mrs. Strobel’s fall. The
photograph of the mats shows that the edges of the mats, in some places, were
not flush with the floor and that there were ripples across the top of the mats.
Although the district court was concerned that it could not be categorically
determined which mat may have been involved, both mats were in a similar
condition. Further, the court seemed troubled that the mats may not have been in
the same condition as in the photograph as the day of the accident. A manager,
however, testified in deposition that after the accident the mats were rolled up
and placed in secure storage, and a shopkeeper testified that the mats were in
the same condition at the time of the accident as they were portrayed in the
photograph, which showed rippling of the mat.

The court also noted that testimony indicated that there were “problems” with the mats two days prior to the accident that were noticed by “several shopkeepers in the Market.” Accordingly, the court vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case.