Court Opinion

ID: 9705397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:05:01.17483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:10.832372
License: Public Domain

GOLDBERG, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority. It is axiomatic that a trial justice, in ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law may not weigh the evidence, may not resolve disputed issues of fact and must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing “from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party. * * * If, after such a review, there remain factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions, the motion for [judgment as a matter of law] must be denied, and the issues must be submitted to the jury for determination.” Martino v. Leary, 739 A.2d 1181, 1182 (R.I.1999) (quoting DeChristofaro v. Mochala, 685 A.2d 258, 262 (R.I.1996)). (Emphasis added.) I am satisfied that the trial justice failed to apply the correct standard, overlooked and misconceived material evidence and impermissibly resolved in favor of defendant the evidentiary inferences created from the established facts.
At the close of plaintiffs case, in denying defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, the trial justice found that,
“[T]he plaintiff, Caroline Barone, on direct examination testified that she slipped on a substance, and she identified that substance as being water. She further testified, and this testimony is corroborated by the exhibit, particularly the National Weather Service exhibit, * * * that on the day in question that it had been snowing * * *.
“Ms. Barone testified, and this was corroborated by the testimony of her sister, Ms. Simonelli, that there were puddles of water that were at various locations within the establishment * * *. [However,] Ms. Barone testified that she could not recall whether or not there were floor mats [on the floor upon entering the store].
“The presence or absence of those floor mats, an inference could be drawn, if there were not floor mats, that the defendant was negligent in not providing the floor mats such that people would be able to remove snow, water, ice from their feet, and thereby track the substance into the store * * * but there is testimony that, from Ms. Barone, as well as Ms. Simonelli, that there was at various locations in the store water or substances which[,] they testified[,] were water * *
The defendant presented a case and attempted to address the trial justice’s concerns about the presence of floor mats, the absence of which, according to the trial justice, could create an inference of negligence and as it turned out, the presence of which defeated an inference of negligence. The defendant presented the testimony of Judith Kerr (Ms. Kerr), an assistant store manager who testified, in apparent contrast with the testimony of plaintiff, that the'area where plaintiff was sitting after her fall was clear of water. She also testified that it was routine practice for the store’s maintenance workers to position water absorbing floor mats in the vestibule area of the store. According to Ms. Ken-, these workers were responsible for mopping the floor around 7:30 or 8 a.m., before the store opened for business. Faith A. Needham (Ms. Needham), a department head at The Christmas Tree Shop, also testified that she was working from 7 a.m. until 10 a.m. in the area of the store where the plaintiff fell. To her knowledge, the floor was clean; she testified that she observed no water. Ms. Needham further stated that when she arrived at the area where plaintiff was sitting after her fall, she observed no water on the floor at that time.
*70At the close of defendant’s ease, the trial justice considered this evidence and, in my opinion, proceeded to resolve disputed questions of fact in defendant’s favor. For example, Ms. Barone had testified, as the trial justice acknowledged in his previous ruling, that water on the floor caused her to slip and fall. However, the defense presented evidence that the area where plaintiff fell was free of water and that defendant maintained a two-man crew responsible for making sure the floor was clear. The plaintiff argued that the testimony proffered by defendant was that the crew was finished mopping the floor by 9 a.m. The trial justice responded,
“That’s not the testimony. The testimony is that the two employees of [the] Christmas Tree Shop mop the floor before the store opens, but after it opens, that the testimony of Ms. Needham is that they, as a regular course of their duties, are required to pick up spills, and to mop things, spills that may have oc-cured.”
However, there was no evidence presented that this crew actually mopped anything that morning. Indeed the plaintiffs evidence was that the floor was littered with puddles of water. In his decision granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law the trial justice found as follows:
“The circumstances here in this case are different [from Cutroneo v. F.W. Woolworth Co. ]. [Here,] [t]he defendant has presented evidence. The Court is constrained to examine the evidence, even without the credibility, without looking at the weight, and in determining whether or not[,] from all of the evidence that the plaintiff has proven that the defendant was negligent.
“In Gleason [v. Almac’s, 103 R.I. 40, 234 A.2d 350 (1967) ], there was no evidence which had been offered as to the steps that the defendant undertook to maintain the premises.
“Here, in this case, there is evidence as to the steps that the defendant customarily and ordinarily employed to maintain the premises.
“In this matter, while there is some evidence that — of the conditions that existed outside the store at the time, there’s no evidence, which has been offered, as to the condition of the floor at the precise location where the plaintiff fell. The testimony by the plaintiff, her witness, Ms. Simonelli, by the defendant’s witnesses, Ms. Kerr and Ms. Needham, that at the location where Mrs. Barone fell, no one saw any water.
“Given the evidence in this matter, the Court is constrained to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. The action against the defendants is dismissed.”1 (Emphasis added .)
This finding is in direct contradiction to his previous ruling in which the trial justice explicitly found that “plaintiff, Caroline Barone, on direct examination testified that she slipped on a substance, and she identified the substance as being water” and further, that the evidence disclosed “that on the day in question it had been snowing” and that “there were puddles of water that were at various locations within the establishment.” Thus, the finding of the trial justice that “there’s no evidence, which has been offered, as to the condition of the floor at the precise location where the plaintiff fell” is simply incorrect and amounts to an impermissible factual determination by the trial justice in violation of Rule 50 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
The strength of the evidence in this case was that it was capable of an inference of negligence. Juries in this state are consistently instructed on the probative value of circumstantial evidence that is capable of establishing facts through the drawing of *71inferences. For example, trial judges instruct juries on the story of the milk bottle 2 and conclude with the admonition that the probative value of circumstantial evidence is the same as that of direct evidence.
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues, that in this case, from the established fact that it was snowing on that fateful morning, and the fact that plaintiff testified she slipped on water and the fact that there were puddles of water throughout the store, one could reasonably draw the inference that there was water on the floor, including the area where plaintiff fell. Further, given the number of puddles observed throughout the establishment, a jury could reasonably find that the defendant knew or should have known of the hazard to plaintiff and other business invitees, and, that given the testimony relative to the number of puddles on the floor, defendant’s witnesses may not have been credible. Moreover, from the existence of numerous puddles throughout the store, so early in the business day, a jury could also find that the “steps that the defendant customarily and ordinarily employed to maintain the premises” that so impressed the trial justice failed, or the testimony was simply not worthy of belief.
Slip and fall cases are difficult to prove; there will hardly ever be a situation in which a store owner or manager comes forward and admits that the floor was wet and that the dangerous condition should have been corrected in a more timely manner. This is part of human nature. These cases are established through circumstantial evidence from which a jury can infer the existence or nonexistence of negligence on the part of a defendant. I believe this is such a case. See DeRobbio v. Stop and Shop Supermarket, 756 A.2d 209 (R.I.2000) (in which employee of the supermarket was working in close proximity to where plaintiff fell and the evidence was undisputed that plaintiff tripped over a box on the floor, reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether defendant was on notice of the dangerous condition).
This case might not have been the strongest case in the court system that day but it was Mrs. Barone’s only case. It should have gone to the jury. Consequently, I dissent.

. Cutroneo v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 112 R.I. 696, 315 A.2d 56 (1974) (where the case was dismissed at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case).

. Prior to retiring for the night, you place an empty milk bottle outside the kitchen door and sleep the night through; upon arising in the morning, you open the door and retrieve a bottle of fresh milk, you can reasonably conclude that the milkman (or the milk woman) came during the night. Although no one saw the milkman arrive, from the presence of an empty bottle at night to the presence of a full bottle in the morning, one can draw the inference that the milkman came during the night.