Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rogerson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Rachael Rogerson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores in her slip-and-fall case. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling. While Rogerson argued that an affidavit showed Wal-Mart's cleaning procedures could have led to the dangerous condition, the court found no evidence that the condition existed prior to her fall or that Wal-Mart was negligent or failed to address a known issue. Without proof of the condition's existence, Rogerson could not show Wal-Mart caused or was aware of it. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment for Wal-Mart.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-11-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 96-1067

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rachael Rogerson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores in her slip-and-fall case. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling. While Rogerson argued that an affidavit showed Wal-Mart's cleaning procedures could have led to the dangerous condition, the court found no evidence that the condition existed prior to her fall or that Wal-Mart was negligent or failed to address a known issue. Without proof of the condition's existence, Rogerson could not show Wal-Mart caused or was aware of it. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment for Wal-Mart.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views2 pages

    Rogerson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, 4th Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rachael Rogerson appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores in her slip-and-fall case. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling. While Rogerson argued that an affidavit showed Wal-Mart's cleaning procedures could have led to the dangerous condition, the court found no evidence that the condition existed prior to her fall or that Wal-Mart was negligent or failed to address a known issue. Without proof of the condition's existence, Rogerson could not show Wal-Mart caused or was aware of it. The appeals court upheld the summary judgment for Wal-Mart.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 96-1067

    RACHAEL G. ROGERSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, District
    Judge. (CA-94-161-4-BO)
    Submitted:

    October 31, 1996

    Decided:

    November 18, 1996

    Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas B. Brandon, III, Williamston, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., Andrew D. Jones, DUNN, DUNN, & STOLLER, New
    Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rachael G. Rogerson appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in her diversity slip-andfall claim. We affirm.
    Rogerson contends that the district court improperly excluded
    an affidavit tending to show that the alleged dangerous condition
    resulting in her accident was a common result of the Defendant's
    cleaning procedures. We find that even if this affidavit were
    admitted it demonstrates only that if the condition existed it may
    have been created by the Defendant's negligence. There is, however,
    no evidence that the alleged dangerous condition actually existed
    prior to Rogerson's fall. Accordingly, because Rogerson cannot
    prove its existence, she cannot prove that it was created by the
    Defendant's negligence or that the Defendant failed to correct the
    condition after actual or constructive notice of its existence. See
    France v. Winn-Dixie Supermarket, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 25, 25 (N.C. Ct.
    App. 1984), review denied, 327 S.E.2d 889 (N.C. 1985) (providing
    standard). We therefore affirm the district court's grant of
    summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. 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

    You might also like