Filed: Jul. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3852 _ Cheryl Kelly lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Four B. Corporation, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: July 13, 2017 Filed: July 17, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Cheryl Kelly appeals
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3852 _ Cheryl Kelly lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Four B. Corporation, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: July 13, 2017 Filed: July 17, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Cheryl Kelly appeals f..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3852
___________________________
Cheryl Kelly
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Four B. Corporation, doing business as Price Chopper; Modern Maintenance, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: July 13, 2017
Filed: July 17, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cheryl Kelly appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary
judgment for the defendants in her removed personal-injury action arising out of a
slip-and-fall incident at a grocery store. After de novo review of the record, we
conclude that the evidence shows a genuine issue of material fact that precluded
summary judgment. See Pippin v. Hill-Rom Co.,
615 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2010)
(standard of review). The evidence, which included video surveillance footage of the
incident, would permit a finder of fact to conclude that one or both defendants were
negligent under Missouri law. See
id. (recognizing the elements of a Missouri
negligence claim as a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a proximately-caused
resulting injury); Smith v. Callaway Bank,
359 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)
(“Whether a defendant’s conduct falls short of the standard of care is generally a
question of fact for the jury.”).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
______________________________
-2-