Jouett v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 3:22-cv-00098

Alice Jouett slipped and fell upon entering a Circle K convenience store, stepping on a floor mat at the entrance from which water "squished out."
After the fall, Jouett filed a negligence claim, alleging an unreasonably dangerous condition (excessively wet mat) on the premises.
The defendant, Mac’s Convenience Store LLC (operating as Circle K), moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of a dangerous condition and that any hazard was open and obvious.
The action was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, with the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
Jouett’s evidence consists primarily of her deposition testimony describing the excessive water and its role in her fall.
The court was tasked with determining whether dispute of material fact existed that would preclude summary judgment for Circle K.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of Dangerous Condition	Mat was excessively wet; water "squished" out and caused her to slip.	No sufficient evidence of a dangerous condition; only Jouett's testimony; compared to other cases where summary judgment granted.	Jouett’s testimony specific enough to establish an issue of material fact.
Sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Testimony	Directly identified wetness as cause.	Testimony uncertain/speculative about the cause of fall; insufficient for trial.	Testimony identified mechanism; sufficient to survive summary judgment.
Open and Obvious Doctrine	Did not notice wetness before stepping; not visually obvious.	Condition was or should have been open and obvious to Jouett.	Not established as open/obvious as a matter of law; fact issue for jury.
Requirement of Notice or Prior Incidents	Not required at this stage per Kentucky law.	Lack of notice/prior incidents indicates no dangerous condition.	Notice not required at this stage of burden-shifting analysis.

Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. 2003) (establishes burden-shifting framework in premises liability slip-and-fall cases)
Martin v. Mekanhart Corp., 113 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2010) (sets out requirements for establishing a dangerous condition and rebuttable presumption of negligence)
McIntosh v. Ky. River Med. Ctr., 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (clarifies open and obvious doctrine is not a complete bar; can be considered comparative fault)
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc’y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013) (clarifies openness/obviousness is a factor in assessing foreseeability and duty)
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Webb, 413 S.W.3d 891 (Ky. 2013) (defines subjective and objective standards for "open and obvious")