Barnwell v. CLP Corp.
235 So. 3d 238
Ala.2017Background
- Barnwell slipped and fell at a McDonald’s owned by CLP on April 25, 2013; he testified he fell after exiting the restroom while turning toward the counter and later felt disoriented and left without ordering.
- Surveillance video from two cameras was produced; the cameras did not show the area immediately outside the restroom where Barnwell says he fell; one clip shows a slip near the counter (possibly Barnwell), but footage lacks affidavits identifying persons and does not capture the restroom exit area.
- Barnwell filed suit for negligence and sought discovery (interrogatories and production requests) about interviews, reports, and photographs; his later motions to compel additional discovery were denied by the trial court.
- CLP moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) Barnwell’s deposition and affidavit were inconsistent and therefore not credible, and (2) any hazard (wet floor from mopping near the counter) was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CLP, reasoning it had considered all evidence; the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding material fact issues remained—especially whether the alleged slick spot outside the restroom was open and obvious and whether Barnwell’s testimony was irreconcilably inconsistent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnwell’s deposition and affidavit are so inconsistent they must be disregarded | Barnwell says he fell after exiting restroom; later affidavit clarifies fall was outside restroom and that surveillance didn’t capture it | CLP says affidavit contradicts deposition and surveillance, so Barnwell’s testimony should be struck | Court: Testimony is not irreconcilably inconsistent; evidence viewed for nonmovant creates genuine issues of fact |
| Whether surveillance video disproves Barnwell’s fall | Barnwell: cameras didn’t show restroom exit area where he fell; video omission explains absence of a recorded fall | CLP: video shows slip near counter and no fall elsewhere, proving Barnwell lied | Court: CLP failed to account for blind spots; video does not negate Barnwell’s account and does not conclusively disprove his claim |
| Whether the hazardous condition was open and obvious (affirmative defense) | Barnwell: he slipped on a “slick spot” outside restroom — not the mopped area; no evidence it was open/obvious | CLP: the wet, mopped floor near the counter was open and obvious; no duty to warn | Court: CLP bore burden to prove this defense and presented no substantial evidence the restroom-area slick spot was open and obvious; summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given discovery disputes | Barnwell: denial of further discovery prejudiced his ability to oppose summary judgment | CLP: had prepared for trial; additional discovery would prejudice it | Court: focused on insufficiency of CLP’s evidence for affirmative defense; remanded for further proceedings (discovery issues not dispositive here) |
Key Cases Cited
- McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor Flea Market, Inc., 601 So.2d 957 (Ala. 1992) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870 (Ala. 1989) (summary-judgment burden and substantial-evidence standard)
- Pritchett v. ICN Med. Alliance, Inc., 938 So.2d 933 (Ala. 2006) (appellate review standards for summary judgment)
- Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349 (Ala. 1994) (summary judgment principles)
- Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Taylor, 28 So.3d 737 (Ala. 2009) (affirmative defense: open-and-obvious hazard burden on invitor)
- Jones Food Co. v. Shipman, 981 So.2d 355 (Ala. 2006) (open-and-obvious hazard analysis and objective standard)
- McGough v. G & A, Inc., 999 So.2d 898 (Ala. 2007) (rule on disregarding conflicting testimony without adequate explanation)
- Moore v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 849 So.2d 914 (Ala. 2002) (defendant entitled to summary judgment when plaintiff presents no evidence)