Tiger v. Quality Transportation, Inc.
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Carmencita Tiger alleges injury from a stumble leaving Store after buying beer and a newspaper; view blocked by belongings.
- Plaintiff asserts the parking lot area where she stepped was cracked or uneven; she did not fall but hurt her ankle.
- Store leased the premises from Red Door; Red Door was obligated to maintain certain capital items, including parking lots.
- Red Door paid to fix the area after the stumble; Store’s employees inspected the driveway and could fix unsafe conditions; Store’s manager patched potholes.
- Plaintiff sued Store and Red Door for negligently failing to remove, barricade, or warn of the uneven surface or provide safe means to ambulate.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on (1) lack of identifiable condition and (2) lack of control by Store due to lease; judgment was certified for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence of dangerous condition and causation | Tiger argues there was a dangerous surface (hole/uneven patch) causing the stumble. | Store argues plaintiff cannot specify what condition caused the stumble. | SJ improper; genuine issues exist |
| Control of the premises | Lease does not conclusively negate Store’s control; Store may have duty despite third-party maintenance. | Lease shows Red Door maintained the area; Store did not control the site. | SJ improper; genuine issues exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Wilson, 331 S.W.3d 332 (Mo.App.2011) (premises-liability elements and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)
- Brown v. Morgan County, 212 S.W.3d 200 (Mo.App.2007) (plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the cause)
- Rycraw v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 28 S.W.3d 495 (Mo.App.2000) (circumstantial evidence allowed where cause not known)
- Hagen v. McDonald's Corp., 231 S.W.3d 858 (Mo.App.2007) (control, ownership, and responsibility considerations in premises duty)
- Lahr v. Lamar R-1 Sch. Dist., 951 S.W.2d 754 (Mo.App.1997) (actions speak louder than words in determining control)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo.banc 1993) (summary judgment standard: all reasonable inferences favor nonmovant)
- Hale v. Wait, 364 S.W.3d 720 (Mo.App.2012) (summary judgment in negligence cases often inappropriate)
- Heacox v. Robbins Educ. Tours, Inc., 829 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.App.1992) (equal-inference critique of prima facie showing not controlling)
- State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47 (Mo.banc 1998) (rejects equal-inferences rule; duty to view reasonable inferences)