Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Seventy-six-year-old P, his wife, and two other family members stopped at a McDonald's. After he received his order, P set his food down at a table and walked to the condiment station. Renner picked up some condiments. Before returning to his table, he thought one of the McDonald's employees spoke to him. P turned and faced the counter before realizing the employee was speaking to another customer. P turned back around to return to his table and his left foot struck a protruding leg of a highchair, causing him to fall and suffer injury to his face and left shoulder. After the fall, P heard one of the employees ask another what the highchair was doing there, and to move it. Siegel, a former Dean of Students at a college in California, was seated in a booth catty-corner to the location of the accident. Siegel's attention was directed that way when she heard a loud noise. She saw D fall and land on the floor. She also saw P's left foot tangled in the leg of a highchair. Siegel then heard an employee immediately instruct other employees to move the highchairs away from that area. Siegel testified that she was not surprised at the fall because the highchairs are obscured from view behind a 'half wall,' and because the legs of the highchairs protrude out farther than the tops of the highchairs. Siegel testified that 'what is hidden is the way that bottom juts out, because as you walk up to the chairs, obviously, they are there, but what you wouldn't expect is for a . . . piece of it to be sticking out.' Siegel confirmed that the chairs were sticking out and described the placement of the chairs as a 'big hazard.' Siegel previously had seen other customers stumble against the chairs and had seen other customers accidently kick the chairs. Siegel had complained several times about the location of the highchairs to a manager and other employees prior to the accident. Velencia Hubbard, the shift manager thought the chairs were properly stored and did not believe they were out of place. She testified that she did not know or did not remember key facts. The trial court found that P was an invitee and D owed a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn only when there was hidden danger, not in plain and open view. The trial court found that 'the presence of a high chair in a McDonald's is clearly a 'normal' and 'usual' condition that an invitee could 'expect to encounter.' The trial court found that P had failed to produce any evidence that any employee had placed the high chair in P's path or had any actual or constructive knowledge that the highchair posed a danger. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co