Kennedy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that crushed grapes on a grocery store were open and obvious and noting the “[p]laintiff’s own deposition testimony establishes that he would have noticed the potentially hazardous condition had he been paying attention.”
• stating that “mere distractions are not sufficient to prevent application of the open and obvious danger doctrine.”
• explaining that the open and obvious doctrine applies to claims based on code violations
• same where the plaintiff slipped on crushed grapes and grape residue on the grocery floor
• “[P]laintiff testified that after he slipped, ‘I could see the grapes [on the floor].’ . . . Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony establishes that he would have noticed the potentially hazardous condition had he been paying attention.”
• “[P]laintiff testified that after he slipped, ‘I could see the grapes [on the floor].’ . . . Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony establishes that he would have noticed the potentially hazardous condition had he been paying attention.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).