Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0643-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beverly MUNGUIA; Ruben Munguia, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GRELYN OF MAUI, LLC, a Hawaii limited liability company, dba McDonald’s Dairy Road, Defendant-Appellant, and Doe Entities 1-50, Defendant.
    No. 11-15751.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 14, 2012.
    Filed May 22, 2012.
    Michael R. Cruise, Leavitt, Yamane & Soldner, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Bennett Evan Cooper, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald Minoru Shigekane, Esquire, Ayabe Chong Nishimoto Sia & Nakamura, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: THOMAS, McKEOWN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Grelyn of Maui, LLC, appeals the judgment entered against it after a jury trial. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here.

The district court neither erred in providing, nor in formulating, the “mode of operation” premises liability instruction to the jury. Hawaii premises liability law permits the instruction in cases such as this one, where a proprietor’s self-service food operation involves a reasonably foreseeable risk of remnant food and grease buildup on floors. Gump v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 Hawai’i 417, 5 P.3d 407, 410-11 (2000); Gump v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 93 Hawai’i 428, 5 P.3d 418, 431-32 (Haw.Ct.App.1999). Although contested, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to allow the instruction to be given to the jury under the specific facts of the case.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the reasons explained in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law. See E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 963 (9th Cir.2009) (“[A] jury’s verdict must be upheld if there is evidence adequate to support the jury’s conclusion----”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.