Another result-oriented decision rejects owner's responsibility for a defect.

In Jakubiec v. VEI Friendly, LLC, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, which had refused to summarily dismiss the Plaintiff's injury claim.  By a 2-1 majority, the Court held the Plaintiff could not go to the jury to prove her claim that she was hurt by a splintered floorboard at Defendant's bowling alley.

The injured woman presented proofs that her shoe was fine when she put it on, but the toe was torn immediately after her fall, that there was a splintered board on a seldom-used approach to her lane, that no one had dropped a ball during her league's play on this lane, and that such a splintered board should have been identifiable when the lane was waxed.  The defendants admitted that the splinter protruded by a half-inch and that it would have been discoverable when the lane was mopped between leagues.  Nevertheless,  the Court held that Ms. Jakubiec could not pursue an injury claim because her circumstantial proof was inadequate.  Apparently the judges wanted proof that the owner of the bowling alley had actually dropped the offending ball and touched the wooden defect before the injury occurred.