According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was walking on the premises and alleged that her foot hit the edge of a lifted tile on the floor which allegedly caused her to fall down.
After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the Plaintiff presented photographic evidence purportedly showing a raised tile in the area where she fell. However, the Plaintiff admitted that she did not know exactly where she fell. The Plaintiff asserted that she tripped over the tile in the photograph or a similar tile.
The record revealed that the photograph of the tile in question showed a ruler with both metric and imperial units stationed in the grout line between two (2) tiles. The imperial measurement was below the “0” inch line. The metric measurement was at the “1” millimeter line.
As such, the court granted summary judgment after finding that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the trivial defect doctrine. The court also found that the Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the fact that the Plaintiff could not identify the exact tile that caused her to fall. The court noted that the evidence fairly suggested that it was just as likely that the Plaintiff had tripped over the grip of her own shoe on the tile, as opposed to catching her foot on the edge of an allegedly raised tile.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney William C. Wagner of the Erie, PA law firm of Marnen, Mioduszewski, Bordonaro, Wagner & Sinnott, LLC for bringing this case to my attention.