Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Lane v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureJudgment as a Matter of LawPremises LiabilityNegligenceRule 50JMOLslip and fallpremises liability

Facts

Lane stopped at a Hardee's restaurant, later entered the restroom, and slipped on what he described as standing water near a drain, injuring his head and neck. During his case-in-chief, Lane elicited testimony from two Hardee's managers that the restaurant had a policy of cleaning, including mopping, the restroom every day after breakfast ended at 10:30 a.m., and one manager testified that it was her habit to put out warning signs when the floor was being mopped. Lane testified that based on his arrival and the time he spent in the restaurant, he entered the restroom between 10:26 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., but saw no warning signs. He argued that a Hardee's employee had recently mopped the restroom, left water on the floor, and failed to warn customers.

Issue

Whether Lane presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that Hardee's, rather than another customer, created the dangerous wet condition on the restroom floor, such that judgment as a matter of law was improper.

Rule

Under Rule 50, judgment as a matter of law may be granted only when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party, and the court may not weigh evidence once the plaintiff has presented the minimum evidence necessary to support a verdict. Under Illinois slip-and-fall law, if a plaintiff seeks to prove that the defendant business created the hazard, the plaintiff must show that the foreign substance was related to the defendant's business and produce some evidence making it more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for its presence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a diner in Peoria, Illinois, Naomi Brooks slipped in a hallway on a wet patch outside the customer restroom at 2:05 p.m. During her case-in-chief, she introduced testimony from two shift supervisors that the diner's regular practice was to mop that hallway every day at 2:00 p.m., and one supervisor said she usually placed caution cones afterward; Naomi testified she saw no cones when she fell.

After Naomi rests, the diner moves for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the evidence is weak because no one saw an employee mopping that day and there were no caution cones out. How should the court rule?

Explanation. Rule 50 permits judgment as a matter of law only when there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant. Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in Naomi's favor, the jury could infer that the hallway was mopped pursuant to the daily practice and that residual water from that mopping caused the fall. The lack of cones may weaken that inference, but under the majority's reasoning that is for the jury to weigh, not the court. The case concerns sufficiency on a creation-of-hazard theory, not a separate requirement of constructive notice. (Derived from Lane v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. (n.d.).)