Cheryl Kelly v. Four B. Corporation

693 F. App'x 462
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 17, 2017
Docket16-3852
StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 462 (Cheryl Kelly v. Four B. Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cheryl Kelly v. Four B. Corporation, 693 F. App'x 462 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cheryl Kelly appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary judgment for the defendants in her removed personal-injury action arising out of a slip- and-fall incident at a grocery store. After de novo review of the record, we conclude that the evidence shows a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. See Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co., 615 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). The evidence, which included video surveillance footage of the • incident, would permit a finder of fact to conclude that one or both defendants were negligent under Missouri law. See id. (recognizing the elements of a Missouri negligence claim as a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a proximately-caused resulting injury); Smith v. Callaway Bank, 359 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012) (“Whether a defendant’s conduct falls short of the standard of care is generally a question of fact for the jury.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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

Related

Pippin v. HILL-ROM CO., INC.
615 F.3d 886 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)
Smith v. Callaway Bank
359 S.W.3d 545 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
693 F. App'x 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cheryl-kelly-v-four-b-corporation-ca8-2017.