Richard Brucker v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “reasonable minds can differ on whether the damaged section of the grey steel crossbar in this case, elevated slightly more than an inch above grey asphalt, was open and obvious”
• finding that there were fact issues regarding the plaintiff’s exercise of ordinary care where the hazard—a damaged crossbar in a cart coral—was elevated only about an inch above asphalt and where the plaintiff testified that she was “walking normally” with her gaze at “eye level”
• on review of trial court’s denial of a motion to compel, noting the trial court’s “broad discretion”
• motion to compel properly denied where party representative expressly stated it had searched the relevant repository – a binder – and that it contained no record of similar incidents
• movant failed to demonstrate that trial court clearly abused discretion in denying motion to compel, where there was evidence in the record reflecting that additional discovery would be immaterial
• genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiff’s knowledge of specific hazard where plaintiff, who was injured by damaged crossbar on cart corral, had general knowledge of crossbar but testified that “she did not see the damage” to it before her fall

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).