Kaechele v. Kenyon Oil Company, Inc.

747 A.2d 167 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Xtra Mart is a 24-hour convenience store. P went to the store to purchase a lottery ticket, and to visit his wife, May Kaechele, who was working as an Xtra Mart clerk. Darlene Mailey was also on duty as an Xtra Mart clerk. Valerie Rowe, an off-duty clerk; and her husband Armand Rowe, with their six-month-old daughter Tiffany were also present. Roddy entered the store to purchase cigarettes. May asked for his I.D. which Roddy did not have. Roddy yelled obscenities at May and Mailey and pounded the service counter. This continued for fifteen minutes. Roddy then left the store, slammed the door, and began pounding on the store's front window. Armand suggested that Mailey or May call the police. No call was made. Armand and D eventually left the store, and a confrontation with Roddy ensued in the parking lot. Roddy struck P, severely injuring his face. One of the clerks called the Police who arrived within two minutes. P sued Roddy, Xtra Mart, D, the Grove Corporation, and Warren Equities, Inc., as defendants. During the trial, the court concluded that general evidence regarding the frequency of calls to D and evidence of prior assaults on the premises was relevant but not the specific details. Two police officers testified in general terms about the incidents at D. The court excluded specific incidents and incidents involving serious injuries. The court excluded a list of all the reasons that D had previously called the police. Two police officers testified that D was the source of many calls, and was one of the most frequent sources of calls in the area and that not all calls related directly to violence. The jury found that both P and D were negligent, concluded that D was more negligent, and awarded P damages. The jury adjusted the award to $168,000 after taking into account P's own negligence. D moved for a judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The motion was denied. Ds appealed. D claims that the trial court erred in admitting evidence regarding Ds previous calls to the Police; and (2) whether the court erred in admitting evidence regarding two D employees' statements to the effect that the assault could have been avoided if they had acted more quickly to summon the police.