Sinclair-Lewis v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 16, 2023·No. 2:20-cv-02063·Unknown

Opinion

Nevada Bar #001107 Nevada Bar #014737 3016 West Charleston Boulevard - #195 Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 (702)366-1125 FAX: (702) 366-1857 jbusby@cooperlevenson.com amarques@cooperlevenson.com Attorneys for Defendant SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. SANDY ALECIA SINCLAIR-LEWIS, Case No. 2:20-cv-02063-JCM-VCF individually; Plaintiffs, vs. AMENDED SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER an Ohio Corporation; DOES I - X, and ROE CORPORATIONS I - X, inclusive, Defendants. After pretrial proceedings in this case, IT IS ORDERED: I. PARTIES: Plaintiff: SANDY SINCLAIR-LEWIS Defendant: SMITH’S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC. RELIEF SOUGHT: Plaintiff seeks general damages for pain, suffering, and special damages for medical expenses incurred and to be incurred in the future. / / / This case involves an alleged slip and fall accident that occurred at a Las Vegas SMITH’S grocery store on May 25, 2019. The parties dispute how the incident occurred. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff slipped and fell after she lost her balance while walking in the back aisle of the subject store. A single photograph taken after the incident by Plaintiff’s husband appears to show a small amount of liquid on the floor in the area of Plaintiff’s fall. Defendant contends that there is no evidence of how the liquid came to be on the floor, but Defendant alleges it was likely caused by another customer a short time prior to Plaintiff’s fall. Defendant further contends the subject aisle was reasonably maintained on the date of Plaintiff’s accident, and that the subject store did not have notice of the alleged foreign substance prior to the fall. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that SMITH’S was negligent in that it created, owned, controlled, inspected, and/or maintained the premises in an unstable and dangerous manner so as to allow a hazardous condition, to exist on the Subject Premises. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that a nearby freezer unit malfunctioned, causing water to leak onto the sales floor, which made it unreasonably slippery, and without proper warning of the hazard, caused Plaintiff, Sandy Alecia Sinclair-Lewis, to slip and fall. Plaintiff further contends, prior to the subject incident, SMITH’S was aware of issues with its freezer units leaking onto the sales floor, and failed to remedy the problem. As a proximate result thereof, Plaintiff was seriously injured. II. This action was originated by the filing of a Complaint in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada on September 11, 2020. Defendant removed the case from State Court to Federal Court on November 9, 2020, citing diversity between the parties and that this Court has jurisdiction of the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C § 1441(b). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1346(b)(1), part of the FTCA. / / / / / / / / / 1. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Las Vegas, Nevada. 2. Plaintiff slipped and fell on May 25, 2019, at a SMITH’S grocery store in Las Vegas, Nevada. IV. CONTESTED AT TRIAL BY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY 1. Plaintiff was shopping at Smith’s Store No. 376, located at 2385 East Windmill Lane, in Las Vegas, Nevada on May 25, 2019. V. ISSUES OF FACT TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL The following are the issues of fact to be tried and determined at trial: 1. Whether Smith’s acted negligently; 2. Whether Defendant was negligent in maintaining their premises specifically, the flooring where Plaintiff fell; 3. Whether Smith’s had notice of the liquid; 4. Whether Plaintiff was comparatively negligent; 5. Whether Smith’s breached any duty of care owed to Plaintiff; 6. Whether the medical care and treatment received by Plaintiff was reasonable and necessary and proximately caused by the subject incident; 7. Whether the medical care and treatment received by Plaintiff was causally related to the incident concerned in this litigation; 8. Whether the medical damages incurred are customary and reasonable for the medical services provided; 9. Whether Plaintiff’s damage claims are recoverable pursuant to the requirements of the law; 10. Whether Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages; 11. Whether Plaintiff has sustained her burden of proving negligence and damages pursuant to the requirement of the law. / / / / / / ISSUES OF LAW TO BE TRIED AND DETERMINED UPON TRIAL 1. Whether Smith’s acted negligently; 2. Whether Smith’s had notice of the liquid; 3. Whether Plaintiff acted negligently; 4. Whether Smith’s breached any duty of care owed to Plaintiff; 5. Whether Plaintiff’s damage claims are recoverable pursuant to the requirements of the law; 6. Whether Plaintiff has sustained her burden of proving negligence and damages pursuant to the requirement of the law. Exhibits (a) The following exhibits are stipulated into evidence in this case and may be so marked by the clerk: • (DEF-0000001 – DEF-0000004) - Incident Report (redacted); • (DEF-0000005) - Evidence Report; • (DEF-0000006 – DEF-0000007) - Sweeps/Floor Inspection Report; • (DEF-0000008) - One (1) color copy of a photograph from the date of the subject incident; and • One (1) compilation DVD from the date of the incident: 30192710559 – Sandy Sinclair-Lewis – Date of Loss: 05/25/19 – Store 376 – DXA Files (1 of 1). Counsel for the parties have stipulated to the authenticity of medical records timely produced in this litigation so that neither party will need to call a Custodian of Records to authenticate medical records that may be offered into evidence. (b) As to the following exhibits, the party against whom the same will be offered objects to their admission on the grounds stated: (1) Plaintiff’s exhibits and Defendant’s objections: Exhibit Bate No Description Defendant’s objection 1. ER 000001 Medical Bill from Community Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, Ambulance, dated 5/25/2019 and 901. 2. ER000002- Medical Bill and Records from St. Rose Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000114 Dominican Hospital- Siena Campus, and 901. dated 5/25/2019 3. ER000115 Medical Bill from Vituity Partners, Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, dated 5/25/2019 and 901. 4. ER000116- Medical Bill from Radiology Associates Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000117 of Nevada, dated 5/25/2019 and 901. 5. ER000118- Medical Bill and Records from Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000166 Steinberg Diagnostic Medical Imaging, and 901. dated 5/25/2019 – 12/9/2020 6. ER000167- Medical Bill and Records from Khavkin Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000370 Clinic, dated 6/3/2019 – 12/1/2020; and 901. ER2750- 3/16/2021 – 3/23/2021 ER2754 7. ER000371- Medical Bill and Records from Desert Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000395 Orthopedic Center, dated 6/5/2019 – and 901. 12/21/2020 8. ER000396- Medical Bill and Records from Total Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000446 Wellness Family Medicine, dated and 901. 6/6/2019 – 10/30/2019 9. ER000447- Medical Bill and Records from Rapid Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000597 Rehab and Wellness Center, dated and 901. 7/9/2019 – 3/17/2020 10. ER000598- Medical Bill and Records from Desert Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000607 Cardiovascular Consultant, dated and 901. 7/19/2019 – 8/15/2019 11. ER000608- Medical Bill and Records from Palm Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER000621 Medical Group, dated 7/29/2019 – and 901. 8/14/2019 12. ER000622- Medical Bill and Records from Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER002221 Henderson Hospital, dated 8/26/2019 – and 901. 9/27/2019 13. ER002222- Medical Bill and Records from Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER002237 SimonMed, dated 6/17/2019 and 901. 14. ER002273- Medical Bill and Records from Las Fed R. Evid. 401, 402, 403, ER002311 Vegas Radiology, dated 5/28/2019-

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

Sinclair-Lewis v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Sinclair-Lewis v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. (Sinclair-Lewis v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Proctor v. Castelletti
911 P.2d 853 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1996)
Fitzhugh v. Love's ex'or
10 Va. 5 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1806)