Barnwell v. CLP Corp., 264 So. 3d 841

CLP operates a McDonald’s; Barnwell alleges he slipped and fell in the restaurant, injuring his hip/back.
CLP moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the hazard (water from mopping) was open and obvious and (2) key parts of Barnwell’s affidavit and deposition were unreliable and should be struck.
The circuit court entered summary judgment for CLP in 2016; no written ruling on the motion to strike was entered, though the court later claimed it had orally granted the motion to strike.
On first appeal this Court (Barnwell v. CLP Corp., 235 So.3d 238 (Ala. 2017)) reversed, holding the court had considered Barnwell’s affidavit and deposition and that those materials were admissible such that summary judgment was improper.
On remand CLP renewed its motion to strike and summary judgment; the circuit court then entered an order striking Barnwell’s affidavit/deposition and again granted summary judgment.
Barnwell appealed again; the Supreme Court applied its prior analysis (law of the case) and reversed the second summary judgment, holding the affidavit and deposition were admissible and summary judgment was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Barnwell’s affidavit and deposition	Affidavit explains surveillance gap and is consistent with deposition; admissible to oppose SJ	Affidavit contradicts earlier deposition and surveillance images; should be struck	Affidavit and deposition were admissible; conflict was not sufficient to strike; evidence should have been considered
Whether surveillance footage negates Barnwell’s account	Surveillance gaps exist; affidavit explains fall occurred off-camera	Footage shows slip near counter and no fall where plaintiff claims; undermines credibility	Surveillance does not conclusively contradict Barnwell; footage lacks affidavit to authenticate and does not capture restroom exit area
Open-and-obvious defense (water on floor)	Evidence (affidavit, deposition, attendant testimony) creates factual dispute about where and how he fell	Water/mopping near counter was open and obvious, so CLP entitled to SJ	Evidence does not support CLP’s open-and-obvious defense as a matter of law; factual disputes remain
Applicability of law-of-the-case / relitigation	Prior opinion resolved admissibility; court should not relitigate same issue	Court may reconsider if prior ruling was based on incomplete record (claimed oral ruling)	Court applied law-of-the-case: prior determination that affidavit/deposition were admissible controls; no basis to reopen here

Barnwell v. CLP Corp., 235 So.3d 238 (Ala. 2017) (prior appellate decision addressing admissibility and reversing summary judgment)
Tanksley v. ProSoft Automation, Inc., 982 So.2d 1046 (Ala. 2007) (evidence opposing summary judgment must be admissible)
McGough v. G & A, Inc., 999 So.2d 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (court may not consider testimony that directly contradicts earlier testimony without explanation)
McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor Flea Market, Inc., 601 So.2d 957 (Ala. 1992) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Capital Alliance Ins. Co. v. Thorough-Clean, Inc., 639 So.2d 1349 (Ala. 1994) (summary judgment standards; nonmoving party must present substantial evidence)
Pritchett v. ICN Med. Alliance, Inc., 938 So.2d 933 (Ala. 2006) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
Ex parte Discount Foods, Inc., 789 So.2d 842 (Ala. 2001) (law-of-the-case doctrine is discretionary)
Lyons v. Walker Reg’l Med. Ctr., 868 So.2d 1071 (Ala. 2003) (exception to law-of-the-case when remand permits consideration of additional facts)
Belcher v. Queen, 39 So.3d 1023 (Ala. 2009) (law-of-the-case may be disregarded only in limited circumstances)