A jury has found a national movie chain not liable to a woman who claimed she was injured after tripping on a “wet floor” sign at one of the company’s theaters.

After deliberating for fewer than 30 minutes, the jury disagreed with an earlier unanimous Georgia Supreme Court decision that questioned AMC’s actions and sent the case to the jury for final determination.  While he was pleased with the jury’s decision, AMC’s attorney Christopher M. Ziegler of Atlanta’s Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, noted that the jury verdict didn’t override the lesson of the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling, which said the trip-and-fall case had to go to a jury, ultimately costing the defendant additional legal expenses.

Plaintiff Nancy Sue Brown had visited the AMC Southlake Theater on Christmas Day in 2003, a traditionally busy day of the year for movie theaters. According to the Supreme Court’s opinion, by the time Brown reached the “wet floor” sign, it had fallen over and was lying flat on the floor.

In a unanimous opinion by then-Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 1997 decision by the Court meant that routine issues of slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall cases -- such as how closely a retailer should monitor its premises and how vigilant patrons must be for their own safety in various settings -- must be answered by juries, not judges.

Given Browns' evidence of the risk posed by the A-frame type of "wet floor" sign when used in areas traversed by large concentrations of people, Justice Sears wrote, the Court couldn't say as a matter of law that AMC had fulfilled its duty to avoid creating an unreasonable safety risk for the public.

At trial, the plaintiffs argued that there were alternatives to the "wet floor" sign used by AMC.  AMC’s attorney countered, stating that:  "I argued that the 'wet floor' sign used in this case was pretty much the normal, standard sign that everyone sees everywhere they go." 

Another key issue considered by the jury at trial was whether the fall at the theater had caused the back injury of which Brown complained and sought damages of $383,000 to cover pain and suffering, medical expenses and loss of consortium for Brown's husband.

A decision to appeal has not been made.

—Source:  Law.com