Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt

How courts have described this case

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

• “Since there was no proof of actual nor constructive notice, plaintiff’s claim rests on an inference that Publix employees were negligent.”
• judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed when jury would have had to stack inferences to conclude that a dinner tray had been overfilled, causing gravy to spill on the floor, later causing plaintiff to slip
• judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed when jury would have had to stack inferences to conclude that a dinner tray had been overfilled, causing gravy to spill on the floor, later causing plaintiff to slip
• court ruled against plaintiff with grease on her skirt, finding that she “failed to show how the [dangerous] condition, if any, was created, who caused it, how long it existed, or that the store was responsible”
• “cannot construct a further inference upon the initial inference in order to establish a further fact unless it can be found that the original, basic inference was established to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences”
• though plaintiff did not know what caused her to slip near the deli counter, and noticed grease on her skirt at the hospital, the court ruled against the plaintiff, finding that she “failed to show how the [dangerous] condition, if any, was created”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).