Claims that loose brick caused plaintiff to fall are rejected by court
Priscilla Klos sued Perriez, Inc., the operator of the Milford House Restaurant, after she fell while leaving the restaurant. She and her companion both claimed that her fall was caused by a loose brick on the entryway stairs. In corroboration, they pointed to circumstantial evidence that two bricks on the step had been replaced. The trial court summarily dismissed her claim, holding she had not provided adequate proof that a loose brick caused her fall or that the owner was aware of any defects in the stair prior to her fall.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals panel also ignored the testimony of the two women. It "found" that a loose brick could not have caused the fall and that if it did, there was no proof that the owner had notice of a problem. For good measure, it also found that Klos had "many health problems" that could have caused the fall, particularly since the restaurant manager claimed that Klos had stumbled against another patron while inside the restaurant. Odd that this observation by the restaurant manager would carry more weight than the testimony of the victim and her companion.... particularly where the courts don't "weigh" testimony or conflicting facts when deciding on summary disposition.