Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man who sued a Chinese restaurant after he slipped on what appeared to be grease can pursue his negligence claim after the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the grant of summary judgment to the restaurant.
In January 2020, appellant-plaintiff Charles Force went to New China Hy Buffet for dinner his wife, Stephanie, and her brother, Jerimiah Steele.
Force noticed that the restaurant was humid, with steamy air and fogged windows. Stephanie also saw moisture on the windows and felt condensation on the floors.
While walking on the tile floor, Steele slipped but did not fall. He noticed a shiny patch on the tile floor that appeared to be water and grease.
Later, as the group was leaving, Force fell as he stepped from the carpet onto the tiles, striking his right knee on the ground. Stephanie noticed a slick substance where he had fallen.
Stephanie and Steele took force to the hospital, where they noticed a black mark on his pants that wasn’t there before. Stephanie also claimed that she smelled grease on her husband’s pants when she washed them later.
Force sued New China, alleging its employees negligently failed to keep the floor clean, resulting in his injury. But the St. Joseph Superior Court granted New China’s motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, Force brought one issue to the appellate court: whether the trial court erred in granting New China’s motion for summary judgment. The court agreed with Force, finding that his designated evidence establishes a genuine dispute of material fact on the question of causation.
“New China argues negligence cannot be inferred merely because an accident occurred,” Senior Judge John Baker wrote. “We do not quarrel with that principle, but the facts here establish more than an accident. Instead, Force presented material facts to support his claim that New China’s negligence caused his injury.”
The COA thus reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
The case is Charles Force v. New China Hy Buffet LLC, 22A-CT-2759.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.