Appellate court may tend to exclude summary judgment even if plaintiff cannot identify with specificity the defect that caused accident.

This case concerns a fall by the plaintiff at her daughter’s bowling tournament. The plaintiff fell on her way to the restroom over what she described as a raised divot, seam, bump or crack which could not actually be seen with the eye. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding that the plaintiff was unable to identify what actually caused her fall and where the fall occurred. The Superior Court reversed, finding the testimony of another witness, that they felt a “hole” in the floor near the bathroom, was sufficient to defeat summary judgment even though it was not consistent with what the plaintiff had described as it “reflected some form of irregularity in the flooring resulting in unevenness.” While non-precedential, this case is notable in that it suggests the appellate court is inclined to preclude summary judgment even if the plaintiff cannot identify the defect which caused their accident with any specificity. 

^{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}