Griffin v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr.

Maine Superior

Griffin v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr.

DecidedMay 4, 2010

DocketANDcv-08-106

StatusUnpublished

This text of Griffin v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr. (Griffin v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffin v. Cent. Maine Med. Ctr., (Me. Super. Ct. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, SS. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-08-106' -r4'-/ f j " , ,~ -"1'''-' v " ), -,~,/, / /'-1,7 ( ' ' . " ,

RECEIVED & FILeD JENNYLEE GRIFFIN, MAY 04 2010 Plaintiff s'}JtfI~?8~gGGIN v. OURT DECISION AND JUDGMENT CENTRAL MAINE MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant

I. NATURE OF CASE

This is an action for personal injuries that plaintiff suffered when she slipped and

fell in the main lobby of the High Street entrance at Central Maine Medical Center. She

claims that the floor was wet and slippery or that there was water there that caused her

to fall resulting in a significant injury to her left wrist.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The incident occurred shortly before 7:00 p.m. on October 20, 2006.1

At the time, Ms. Griffin was employed at the Cloud 9 Day Spa as a cosmetologist.

At the end of the work day on Friday, October 20, she went to CMMC with a couple of

co-workers to set up an exhibit booth for Cloud 9 for a women's health fair to be held

the next day.

There is no dispute that it rained extremely hard all day on October 20.

When Ms. Griffin arrived with her co-workers they parked under an overhang,

def. ex. #2, 3, and 4, to be sheltered from the rain as they carried things inside. This was

at the main entrance at 12 High Street, one of several entrances to get to various areas of

1 The facts set out by the court constitute findings by a preponderance of evidence unless otherwise stated. the hospital. A person enters the hospital at this location from the covered drop-off

area, through an outer doorway, and across a metal grate where water, snow, and ice,

that is tracked in, can drain and not accumulate. Def. ex. 5 and 6. Ms. Griffin then went

through an inner set of doors into the lobby approximately 35 feet from a bank of

elevators. Def. ex. 7 and 8.

The plaintiff is not exactly sure where she fell in the lobby area, def. ex. 1, but

states she was carrying things in with her co-workers. As she headed to the elevator

she "did not see any standing water." When she went in, she did not know if the

bottom of her sneakers were wet, but after she fell she noticed that her "bottom and leg

were wet."

There were no floor signs to warn anybody about wet floors and no mats to

collect water or to prevent a slip.

A co-worker, Angie Lynn Lafayette, who was with Ms. Griffin, saw her fall. She

did not see any water on the floor before the fall, but did see some water, "more than a

footprint," after the fall.

The hospital has standard procedures regarding floor conditions in public areas.

The hospital security staff makes regular rounds of all areas, including public areas to

make sure that there are no conditions that might be a hazard. On the day in question,

the staff was aware of the heavy rain and was vigilant on their security rounds to look

for wet spots. The log sheet for October 20, def. ex. 10, shows that "patrol/ checks" were

made at 6:18 p.m. and 6:28 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. It is not known at exactly what time the

check was made of the lobby area where Ms. Griffin fell, but staff was alert to the

situation and did not notice any potential hazard prior to the fall.

Daniel Beaule was the security supervisor on duty at the time of plaintiff's fall.

In addition, there were three other security officers, a dispatcher at the switchboard,

2 and two others who would rotate in and out on patrol. There is no predictable pattern

for the patrols, but the 12 High Street lobby had more patrols than other areas because it

is an entrance. While on patrol, the officers are to be observant for hazards with

lighting, doors, rails, and walk areas, and to make note of any unsafe conditions. If an

officer observes water in any area, the standard protocol is to block the area, report it to

environmental services (housekeeping), and to remain there until the area is cleaned up.

Prior to the plaintiff's fall, there had been no reports of water on the floor.

After the report of the fall, Beaule went to the High Street lobby and met with the

plaintiff who complained to him of pain "in the left wrist and some swelling was

obvious." Beaule inspected the area of the fall and "observed that the floor was dry"

and took a photo of the area. Def. ex. 9.

After speaking with Ms. Griffin, Beaule placed a "wet floor sign in the area to

remind others that their footwear may be wet from the outside./I Def. ex. 9.

The hospital is aware that the tile floor in this area can be wet at times when

people track in snow, slush, ice, sand, and salt during the winter. During these times,

beginning about mid-November, or at the first sign of snow, heavy rubber-backed mats

are placed in the area. See pI. ex. 4 and 5, and def. ex. 7. The mats are not utilized when

they are not needed, because they are a trip hazard in themselves and must be secured

with duct tape.

III. NEGLIGENCE

The law of Maine for premises liability is well-settled: The owner of a building

has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe

condition. In order to prove that the defendant was at fault, the plaintiff must prove by

a preponderance of evidence that:

3 1. The condition of the lobby floor (wet/water) created a foreseeable risk of injury;

2. that the defendant caused the floor to be wet; or,

3. the defendant had actual knowledge that the floor was wet; or

4. the floor had been wet or that there was water on the floor for such a length of time that the defendant should have known about it; or

5. the floor was wet or water was present as a result of a recurrent condition that was foreseeable and created a risk of injury.

See Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 7.63, Slip and Fall, Foreign Substance.

If we use a standard for ice and snow rather than a foreign substance, the test is

similar; however, when the condition is one that arises as a result of weather, the law

recognizes that the owner of the premises must have notice, or a reasonable opportunity

to get notice, of the condition and a reasonable opportunity to take appropriate steps to

correct or warn of the condition. See Budzko v. One City Ctr. Assoc., L.P., 2001 ME 37, 767

A.2d 310; Poulin v. Colby ColI., 402 A.2d 846 (Me. 1979); Isaacson v. Husson ColI., 297 A.2d

98 (Me. 1972); and Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual, § 7-64, Snow and Ice.

IV. DISCUSSION

There is no evidence that the defendant caused the floor to be wet or that the

hospital had actual knowledge that the floor was wet or that water present on the floor.

Security officers were conducting regular patrols and safety checks at reasonable

intervals. Even if water was present, or the floor was wet from some cause other than

wetness on plaintiff's own footwear, the court finds that the plaintiff has not proven by

a preponderance of evidence that it was present for such a duration that the defendant

knew or should have known about it.

In winter time when snow, ice, slush, sand, and salt remain on the ground for

substantial periods, the hospital places mats to deal with that recurrent condition, but

4 because the mats are themselves a trip hazard, especially for people with mobility

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