Case Name: Cheryl KELLY Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOUR B. CORPORATION, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-17
Citations: 693 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 16-3852
Parties: Cheryl KELLY Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOUR B. CORPORATION, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc. Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Cheryl KELLY Plaintiff-Appellant v. FOUR B. CORPORATION, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc. Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-3852
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 13, 2017
Filed: July 17, 2017
Jason M. Pottenger, Pottenger Law Firm, Kansas City, MO, Sophie Wood-worth, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant
Robert Luder, Lesley Renfro Willson, Luder & Weist, Overland Park, KS, for Defendant-Appellee Four B. Corporation
Jennifer R. Johnson, Michelle Rene Stewart, Hinkle Law Firm LLC, Overland Park, KS, for Defendant-Appellee Modern Maintenance, Inc.
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Cheryl Kelly appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment for the defendants in her removed personal-injury action arising out of a slip- and-fall incident at a grocery store. After de novo review of the record, we conclude that the evidence shows a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. See Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co., 615 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). The evidence, which included video surveillance footage of the • incident, would permit a finder of fact to conclude that one or both defendants were negligent under Missouri law. See id. (recognizing the elements of a Missouri negligence claim as a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a proximately-caused resulting injury); Smith v. Callaway Bank, 359 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) ("Whether a defendant's conduct falls short of the standard of care is generally a question of fact for the jury.").
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.