Facts
- Margaret Tice babysat her son Cabell Tice’s children at Cabell and Debra Tice’s home and was paid about 150 per month.
- While babysitting, Margaret carried groceries toward the front of the house with her grandson.
- As she walked up an incline along a sidewalk, she slipped and fell in the front yard, either after stepping onto the grass or after slipping from the sidewalk onto the grass.
- Evidence indicated toys were generally present in the yard, the ground had small holes, and the area was covered with leaves.
- There were no eyewitnesses to the fall.
- Margaret could not identify the cause of her fall and testified only that she believed it “must have been” a toy.
- Margaret sued Cabell and Debra for negligently allowing the premises to exist in an unreasonably dangerous condition; defendants denied negligence and asserted contributory negligence.
Issues
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to the homeowners’ negligence in maintaining the premises.
- Whether a plaintiff’s inability to identify the specific cause of a fall, beyond speculation, is sufficient to submit a premises-liability claim to a jury.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for Cabell and Debra Tice.
- Assuming Margaret was an invitee due to paid babysitting, the court held the evidence still failed to support a reasonable inference of negligence and causation.
- General evidence of potential hazards (toys, holes, leaves) did not create a jury question where the plaintiff could not identify what caused the fall.
- The court reiterated that a premises owner is not an insurer of invitee safety and that negligence is not presumed from the mere fact of injury; res ipsa loquitur does not apply.
Legal Principles
- Even when the plaintiff is treated as a business invitee, the landowner’s duty is ordinary and reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe.
- A landowner is not an insurer of an invitee’s safety; an invitee’s injury does not create a presumption of negligence.
- In a slip-and-fall premises case, the plaintiff must present evidence permitting a reasonable inference of both a dangerous condition and causation; conjecture about what “must have” caused the fall is insufficient.
- Summary judgment is proper when the evidence would require a jury to guess about the cause of the accident and the defendant’s negligence.
Conclusion
Because the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall and relied only on speculation despite evidence of possible yard hazards, the court held there was no triable issue of negligence or causation and affirmed summary judgment for the homeowners.