Hunt v. National Super Markets, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc.

    891 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. 1995)   Cited 76 times
    Holding Missouri "will no longer recognize the phrase ` res gestae' as carrying sufficient meaning to support either the admission of or an objection to proffered testimony"

    Actual knowledge of a dangerous condition is shown if "an agent or employee [of the defendant] knew of the dangerous condition." Taylor v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 592 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Mo.App. 1979); accord Hunt v. National Super Markets, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo.App. 1991); Vinson v. National Super Markets, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 373, 375 (Mo.App. 1968). McIntyre v. M. K. Department Store, Inc., 435 S.W.2d 737, 740-41 (Mo.App. 1968).

  2. Breckenridge v. Meierhoffer-Fleeman

    941 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that when an agent of defendant has knowledge of a hazardous condition, such knowledge is deemed to be actual notice of such condition to defendant

    Prier v. Smitty's Supermarket,Inc., 715 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986). In such cases, liability to a business invitee is premised upon the owner's superior knowledge of a defective or dangerous condition on his premises which results in injury. Hunt v. Nat'lSuper Mkts., Inc. , 809 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). When the owner of a business has actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous, foreseeable condition, he has the duty to prevent injuries resulting therefrom.

  3. Fogelbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    270 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2001)   Cited 29 times

    "The liability of a defendant store owner in [slip and fall] cases is based upon his superior knowledge of a defective condition on his premises which results in injury." Hunt v. National Super Mkts., 809 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (citation omitted). Accordingly, the district court instructed the jury that it could not assess fault against Wal-Mart unless it believed that Wal-Mart knew about the plastic band or by using ordinary care, could have known about the band.

  4. Fontaine v. Columbia Props. Ozarks, Ltd.

    Case No. 2:15-cv-04213-NKL (W.D. Mo. Nov. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    1. Actual or Constructive NoticeDefendants argue that "[t]he notice requirement has traditionally been a strict requirement" and contend that a lack of actual notice defeats Plaintiffs' case. [Doc. 46, p. 6] (citing Hunt v. National Super Markets, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 157 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991); Hayes v. National Super Markets, Inc., 612 S.W.2d 819 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)). Yet, as noted above, land owners must warn invitees against both known dangers and those that would be revealed by inspection, commonly known as constructive notice.

  5. Gatley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    16 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 7 times
    In Gatley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 16 S.W.3d 711 (Mo.Ct.App. 2000), the Missouri Court of Appeals interpreted Missouri Supreme Court precedent as holding "that, at least as to falls outside the store, it is necessary that the defendant have some opportunity to observe the dangerous condition before the fall for which a plaintiff seeks to hold it responsible."

    We are not required or permitted, however, to supply missing evidence or to give Plaintiff the benefit of unreasonable, speculative, or forced inferences. Hunt v. National Super Markets, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Mo.App.E.D. 1991). The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value of their testimony and may believe or disbelieve any portion of that testimony.

  6. Mathis v. Jones Store Company

    952 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 34 times
    In Mathis v. Jones Store Company, 952 S.W.2d 360, 363-365 (Mo.App. 1997), for example, two jurors in the slip-and-fall case briefly discussed the evidence with one another before deliberations and during a trial break, with one of them saying "I don't see what the defense can do to counter what we have already heard," and making some reference to "the cleaning cart."

    Prier v. Smitty's Supermarket, Inc., 715 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986). In such cases, liability to a business invitee is premised upon the owner's superior knowledge of a defective or dangerous condition on his premises which results in injury. Hunt v. National Super Mkts., Inc., 809 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). Thus, to find the Jones Store liable, Mathis was required to prove it had actual or constructive knowledge of the slippery substance on the floor.