Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01192/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01192-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1192

CAROL V. STIMSON,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FOOD LION, LLC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(8:06-cv-00614-WDQ)

Submitted: September 5, 2007 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tamara B. Goorevitz, David A. Skomba, FRANKLIN & PROKOPIK,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Francis A. Pommett, III, LAW

OFFICES OF NATHANSON & POMMETT, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1192 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Food Lion, LLC, appeals a district court judgment finding

for Appellee Carol V. Stimson, and awarding her $279,297.02 in

damages for Food Lion’s negligence. Food Lion challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence, the district court’s sparse factual

findings when it awarded a victory to Stimson, and the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting the damages award. Finding no error, we

affirm. 

We directed a limited remand in order for the district

court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance

with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We find

the court’s factual findings and conclusions of law in its December

11, 2007 memorandum opinion are sufficient.

The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for

clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Carter v. Ball, 33

F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994). We find there was sufficient

evidence supporting the court’s findings. Based on the court’s

findings that the hazard was not open and obvious and Food Lion

failed to warn Stimson of the hazard, we find no error in the

court’s decision not to address the issue of Stimson’s negligence.

We also find no error in the award of damages. The court heard

testimony from Stimson’s treating physician regarding the

reasonableness and necessity of the medical bills. We also find

Appeal: 07-1192 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Stimson’s testimony provided sufficient support for the award of

lost wages. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 07-1192 Doc: 36 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 3 of 3