Court Opinion

ID: 7575383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 06:20:23.854428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:11.679961
License: Public Domain

Sarah and John Beaman appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Wiregrass Rehabilitation Center ("Wiregrass Rehabilitation"). The Beamans had sued Wiregrass Rehabilitation, alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and breach of a duty of care following Sarah's slip and fall accident that occurred while she was on the premises of Wiregrass Rehabilitation as a business invitee. John Beaman's claim was a derivative one for loss of consortium.
On appeal, they allege that an issue of material fact exists as to whether Wiregrass Rehabilitation was negligent and breached a duty to make its premises safe for its business invitees. We disagree. "The plaintiff must be able to present evidence that his fall was caused by a defect or instrumentality located on the premises as a result of the defendant's negligence, and of which the defendant had or should have had notice at the time of the accident." Massey v.Allied Products Co., 523 So.2d 397, 398 (Ala. 1988) (citation omitted). Wiregrass Rehabilitation supported its summary judgment motion with a prima facie showing that there had been no breach of duty. The Beamans did not present any evidence in opposition to show that Wiregrass Rehabilitation had breached any duty owed to them.
On the authority of Massey v. Allied Products Co., supra, andTice v. Tice, 361 So.2d 1051 (Ala. 1978), the trial court's judgment *Page 1336 
is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.