## Facts

- Donald D. Lane visited a Hardee’s restaurant in Harrisburg, Illinois on November 2, 1995, shortly after 10:00 a.m., ordered a drink, smoked, and then used the restroom.
- As he exited the restroom, Lane slipped on standing water near a drain and suffered head and neck injuries when he fell.
- Hardee’s managers testified that the restroom was customarily cleaned and mopped daily after breakfast ended at 10:30 a.m., and that warning signs were habitually placed when mopping occurred.
- Lane testified he arrived around 10:16–10:35 a.m., waited about ten minutes, entered the restroom around 10:26–10:45 a.m., and saw no warning signs.
- Lane’s theory was that he fell soon after routine mopping and that the water was mop water left on the floor without adequate warning.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law for Hardee’s by finding Lane’s evidence insufficient to permit a jury to infer that Hardee’s created the wet-floor condition.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment as a matter of law and remanded for a new trial.
- Viewing the evidence favorably to Lane, a reasonable jury could infer that the water resulted from Hardee’s routine post-breakfast mopping and that warnings were not provided.
- The district court improperly removed the case from the jury by effectively requiring direct proof that a Hardee’s employee caused the water.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, judgment as a matter of law is improper if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, a reasonable jury could find for that party.
- At the Rule 50 stage, the court may not weigh competing inferences or assess which explanation is more convincing; it asks only whether the plaintiff has introduced enough evidence to support a verdict.
- In premises-liability cases, circumstantial evidence such as routine practices, timing, and absence of warnings can be sufficient for a jury to find that the defendant created the hazardous condition.

## Conclusion

Because Lane presented circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Hardee’s routine mopping created the wet-floor hazard and that warnings were not provided, the district court erred in granting Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law; the case was remanded for a jury to decide negligence.


Lane v. Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc., 184 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 1999)