Louisville R. v. Ellerhorst

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a plaintiff had come forward with “overwhelming” evidence from which a jury could find constructive knowledge of slippery conditions on a dance floor including testimony from several witnesses regarding rainy conditions
• denying summary judgment “where defendants were aware of weather conditions and other factors that led to the alleged wet and slippery dance floor”
• “[N]o one questions that [COVID-19] poses a 22 substantial risk of serious harm” to prisoners.
• “[E]vidence regarding ‘the size or nature of the spill is not a substitute for “time on the floor” evidence.’”
• plaintiff’s testimony that prior to her own fall on an allegedly wet dance floor another person fell on the floor was insufficient to show defendant knew of the condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).