Alexander v. Town and Country Discount Foods, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Alexander v. Town and Country Discount Foods, Inc.

872 S.W.2d 390, 316 Ark. 446, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 210

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 28, 1994

Docket93-1181

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 872 S.W.2d 390 (Alexander v. Town and Country Discount Foods, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Town and Country Discount Foods, Inc., 872 S.W.2d 390, 316 Ark. 446, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 210 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The plaintiff tripped and fell over a mat as she was entering defendant’s store. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals and states:

The fact that res ipsa loquitur may not have been applied to slip and fall cases in the past should not preclude this court from now reversing, changing or perhaps modifying previous Arkansas law and holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur from this point forward will apply in slip and fall cases.

The court of appeals certified the case to this court. We affirm the summary judgment.

We have often held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to slip and fall cases. Mankey v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 314 Ark. 14, 858 S.W.2d 85 (1993); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Willmon, 289 Ark. 14, 708 S.W.2d 623 (1986); Haggans v. Jonesboro Cable TV, Inc., 252 Ark. 191, 477 S.W.2d 840 (1972); Miller v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 238 Ark. 709, 384 S.W.2d 947 (1964). The reason the doctrine is not applicable to slip and fall cases is that the sole cause of the injury is not necessarily a negligent act by the defendant. There are possibilities of negligence by third parties as well as the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The plaintiff tripped and fell over a mat as she was entering defendant’s store. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals and states:

The fact that res ipsa loquitur may not have been applied to slip and fall cases in the past should not preclude this court from now reversing, changing or perhaps modifying previous Arkansas law and holding that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur from this point forward will apply in slip and fall cases.

The court of appeals certified the case to this court. We affirm the summary judgment.

We have often held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable to slip and fall cases. Mankey v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 314 Ark. 14, 858 S.W.2d 85 (1993); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Willmon, 289 Ark. 14, 708 S.W.2d 623 (1986); Haggans v. Jonesboro Cable TV, Inc., 252 Ark. 191, 477 S.W.2d 840 (1972); Miller v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 238 Ark. 709, 384 S.W.2d 947 (1964). The reason the doctrine is not applicable to slip and fall cases is that the sole cause of the injury is not necessarily a negligent act by the defendant. There are possibilities of negligence by third parties as well as the plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 S.W.2d 390, 316 Ark. 446, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-town-and-country-discount-foods-inc-ark-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack