Opinion ID: 874344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The jury verdict was supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Text: Kay argues that the jury verdict was neither consistent with applicable law nor supported by substantial and competent evidence. Kay argues that the evidence at trial demonstrated that Respondents knew or should have known that the bathroom was a dangerous condition based upon the fact that one person had previously fallen in the bathroom. At trial Respondent Becky Chapman testified that someone had previously fallen in the bathroom over 20 years prior to Kay's fall, but she did not know how or where he fell in the bathroom. Becky Chapman also testified that this person had been drinking prior to his fall. This was the only evidence Kay discussed in her brief when arguing that the jury verdict was not supported by substantial and competent evidence. On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of proving error. Garcia v. Pinkham, 144 Idaho 898, 900, 174 P.3d 868, 870 (2007). Kay has not upheld this burden through her cursory discussion of the evidence. Based upon the record before us, the jury could disbelieve Kay's claim that Becky told her that several other people had fallen in that shower and reasonably find that Respondents' failures to warn Kay of the new rug and recessed shower were not a substantial factor in bringing about the fall. Rather, the jury could reasonably find that Kay's attempt to free her heel from her pant hem while rising next to the recessed shower, which was immediately next to and apparent to her, was the only substantial factor in causing the fall. We conclude that the jury verdict was supported by substantial and competent evidence.