Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07056/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

IJILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United St11te11 Court of Appeals 

T~nth Cfrru:~ 

JUL :3 o 1991 

&OBERT I... HOECKER 

Clerk 

BETTY LOU KEETER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-7056 

) (D.C. No. 89-134-C) 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., ) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. _ See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Betty Lou Keeter brought this action to recover 

damages for personal injuries sustained when she fell on a liquid 

substance in the checkout aisle of a department store operated by 

defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Keeter asserted a negligence 

claim against defendant. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7056 Document: 010110129491 Date Filed: 07/30/1991 Page: 1 
/ 

returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant then filed a 

motion for judgment n.o.v. which was granted, and this appeal 

followed. 

Our review of rulings on motions for judgment n.o.v. is de 

nova. Guilfoyle ex rel. Wild v. Missouri, Kan. & Tex. R.R., 812 

F.2d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1987). Judgment n.o.v. is appropriate 

when the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, points but one way, in favor of the moving party. 

Lucas v. Dover Corp., Norris Div., 857 F.2d 1397, 1400 (10th Cir. 

1988). In determining whether the grant or denial of a judgment 

n.o.v. was appropriate, we do not weigh the evidence or pass upon 

the credibility of witnesses. 

With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the record on 

appeal and the parties' appellate briefs, and we concur in the 

district court's determination. Plaintiff's testimony that she 

could have seen the liquid which caused her to fall if she had 

looked down as she entered the checkout aisle establishes that the 

liquid was readily observable in the exercise of ordinary care.

1 

Therefore, the liquid was, as a matter of law, open and obvious, 

and could not provide a basis for liability. See,~, Wise v. 

Roger Givens, Inc., 618 P.2d 951, 952 (Okla. Ct. App. 1980). 

Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, this case is 

distinguishable from J.J. Newberry Co. v. Lancaster, 391 P.2d 224 

1 Although the checkout aisle where plaintiff fell was narrow, 

plaintiff testified that there was no one in the aisle when she 

approached, that she was not pushing a shopping cart in front of 

her, and that she simply did not look at her path of travel down 

the aisle, which was five or six feet long. Plaintiff presented 

no evidence that her attention was drawn elsewhere or that the 

liquid was even partially hidden. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7056 Document: 010110129491 Date Filed: 07/30/1991 Page: 2 
( Okla . 19 6 4 ) . Unlike Lancaster, the evidence here does not 

indicate that the liquid was at a point in defendant's store where 

plaintiff, out of necessity, was walking and "looking upward 

without opportunity to observe the aisle ahead." Id. at 229. 

Thus, Lancaster does not require reversal of the district court. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-7056 Document: 010110129491 Date Filed: 07/30/1991 Page: 3