By Seattle Personal Injury Lawyer Travis Scott Eller

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a woman injured in a supermarket.[1]

The woman was injured when she fell in a QFC supermarket floral department.  She claims she was injured as a result of the negligence of the supermarket.

She fell in the floral department and admits she did not see any water on the floor before she fell. However, she maintained that she was focused on browsing the flowers and not watching the floor, and that the amount of water on the floor where she fell could not be explained other than by the conclusion that water was present on the floor prior to her fall.

The supermarket won at the trial court level.  The trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals noted that the shopper is not required to keep her eyes “riveted” to the floor as she shops.[2] Moreover, she is not required to provide direct evidence to demonstrate that she slipped and fell due to a pool of water; circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally reliable.

Also, immediately after the accident the QFC floral department manager explained to the injury victim that she may have slipped because a previous customer may have spilled water on the floor.

The Court of Appeals ruled that this was enough evidence to present the case to a jury and overturned the trial court’s dismissal.

[2] Smith v. B&I Sales Co., 74 Wn.2d 151, 153, 443 P.2d 819 (1968).