Lovins v. Kroger Company

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that summary judgment was properly granted to store because inference that store employee had actual knowledge of the hazard “cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility”
• no inference of actual knowledge could be made where plaintiff slipped on spinach dip and employee testified that she had set out spinach dip on table and saw no customers pass through the area
• summary judgment properly granted to grocery store because inference that store employee had actual knowledge of the hazard “cannot be based upon evidence which is too uncertain or speculative or which raises merely a conjecture or possibility”
• where employee was working in cheese section and not facing area in which fall occurred and showcase blocked her view of the area, plaintiff could not show employee could have easily seen foreign substance and removed hazard
• “In passing on a motion for summary judgment, a finding of fact which may be inferred but is not demanded by circumstantial evidence has no probative value against positive and uncontradicted evi- dence that no such fact exists.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).