Barefoot Injury Cases

Barefoot Injury Cases

Howell v. Cook, 576 So. 2d 227 (1991)

The Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

The Situation: Robert Rhodes, a minor, was mowing the Cooks yard, barefoot, when he stepped on a hard, green peach, lost his balance, fell, and injured his foot under the mower.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment for the Cooks, saying no negligence on their part was shown. The Supreme Court upheld the decision, particularly since Rhodes knew of the peaches on the ground.

Martin v. City of Gadsden, et al., 584 So. 2d 796 (1991)

The Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

The Situation: Tyson Martin, age 2, was playing barefoot in a city park when he stepped on hot charcoal briquets that had been dumped on the ground earlier in the day.

The Disposition: One deciding issue was whether the park was a commercial entity (if it wasn't, then a recreational use immunity statute applied). The jury of trial court decided that the park was non-commercial. The other deciding issue was whether the city was wantonly negligent or had actual knowledge of the danger. The trial court decided no. Thus, the city was not liable. The Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Ex parte Neese, unpublished (2001)

The Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

The Situation: Barbara Neese, on leaving the house of her father, had removed her shoes to keep them from getting wet in the rain. She then slipped on rain-slickened underside of the mat on the front walkway, and broke her wrist.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment to her father, saying that the danger was open and obvious. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment. The Supreme Court also affirmed the summary judgment.

Wagner v. Coronet Hotel and Rubbermaid Inc., 458 P.2d 390, 10 Ariz. App. 296 (1969)

The Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

The Situation: Norman Wagner slipped in the bathtub of the Coronet Hotel. The contention against Rubbermaid was that the mat was defective, in that the center of the mat was designed without any little rubber feet.

The Disposition: The jury awarded $40,000. The trial judge issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Hotel was not liable, but that Rubbermaid was.

Bisnett v. Mowder, 560 P.2d 68, 114 Ariz. 213 (1977)

The Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

The Situation: Christine Bisnett slipped on the wet patio of the Mowders' pool.

The Disposition: The trial court issued a directed verdict in the Mowders' favor. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ordered a new trial. In this case, the Mowders had painted the patio with very slippery paint, and had had other guests slip on it. They did not warn Mrs. Bisnett of the slipperyness.

Of Interest: This is one of the cases cited by the Columbus Metropolitan Library as part of my lawsuit.

Goodmaker v. Kelley, 154 Cal. App. 2d 457, 316 P.2d 746 (1957)

The Court: District Court of Appeal of California, Appellate District 2, Division 1

The Situation: Goodmaker sublet a portion of an apartment from the Kelleys. On going upstairs to his apartment from the pool, barefooted, he slippped and fell.

The Disposition: The trial court ruled for the Kelleys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

Of Interest: The Court of Appeals said that Goodmaker "was chargeable with knowledge that leaving a swimming pool and going upon the stairs while his feet were wet would cause a condition of slipperiness on such steps." They also said "We are also confronted with the finding that [Goodmaker] was guilty of contributory negligence, a finding which in our opinion, was amply sustained by uncontradicted evidence hereinbefore narrated."

Post v. Camino Del Properties Inc., 173 Cal. App. 2d 446, 343 P.2d 294 (1959)

The Court: District Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District

The Situation: Ernest Post slipped and fell while barefoot at a swimming pool that he claimed was overly slippery.

The Disposition: The jury awarded damages of $9,150, which the trial judge overturned (judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial, since the pool had installed non-stick tape at the other pool entrance but not this one, and because of evidence that others had slipped in that same spot.

Furtado v. Montebello Unified School District, 206 Cal. App. 2d 72, 23 Cal. Rptr. 476 (1962)

The Court: District Court of Appeal of California, Appellate District 2, Division 4

The Situation: Antone Furtado, age 15, bruised his left foot while running barefoot on a school track. It did not heal. It was then drained and it healed. Later a coach dropped weights on the foot. It didn't heal, and further examination revealed a cancerous tumor. He eventually lost his leg.

The Disposition: Trial court awarded damages (for what, it's not clear). Court of Appeals upheld the award. Most of the discussion was about the way the expert testimony was presented.

Banker-Riskin v. Holman, unpublished (2001)

The Court: Court of Appeals of California, District 2, Division 7

The Situation: Anita Banker-Riskin was burned during a Firewalking Seminar, requiring skin grafts. She had previously signed a waiver absolving the seminar of all injuries.

The Disposition: The trial court ruled that the release waiver barred the suit. The Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

Of Interest: The discussion of the firewalking reveals that people often get blisters from the firewalks. In this particular one, many more people than usual were burned, suggesting that the bed of coals was not prepared properly. However, the waiver still held.

Wright v. Vail Run Resort Community Association Inc., 917 P.2d 364 (1996)

The Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

The Situation: David Wright, barefoot, slipped on the brick surface of the wet walkway near a condominium pool. He injured his foot, which became infected.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment for the pool. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment.

Andrews v. Narber, 59 So. 2d 869 (1952)

The Court: Supreme Court of Florida

The Situation: There was a puddle of water on the walkway leading to a pool. Andrews slipped in it and injured herself, with one of her reasons being that the sun was in her eyes.

The Disposition: The case was dismissed at the trial court level, it being common knowledge that walkways around pools may be slippery. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal (the pool owner was not liable).

Kessler et al. v. Thomas Corp. et al., 73 So. 2d 415 (1954)

The Court: Supreme Court of Florida, Division A

The Situation: Kessler slipped and fell, barefooted, approaching the lunch counter at the pool of a cabana.

The Disposition: The trial court found for the lunch counter. The Supreme Court affirmed, basing it on Andrews v. Narber, above.

Winer v. Walo, Inc., 105 So. 2d 376 (1958)

The Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, 3rd District

The Situation: Irving Winer slipped while running barefoot from wet grass onto wet terrazzo near the pool of a resort motel. He contended that the terrazzo was unduly slippery and an inappropriate material near a pool.

The Disposition: The trial court issued a directed verdict for the motel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict.

Triana v. Fi-Shock, Inc., 763 So.2d 454, 763 So.2d 454 (2000)

The Court: Florida Court of Appeal

The Situation: Edelmiro Espinoza was hired to install cable for cable television. Unknown to him, the owner of the property, Manuel Triana, had installed a dog-shock device, not under the ground, but across a door. When Espinoza went to enter the door, large current went down his bare legs, through his bare feet to the ground, shocking and injuring him.

The Disposition: The trial court found Triana 100% liable. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Banks v. Watts, 44 S.E.2d 510, 75 Ga. App. 769 (1947)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: Jimmie Lee Watts, a 7 year old boy, was walking along the sidewalk in front of a Cleaners, when pipes from the Banks' Cleaners released a quantity of boiling water onto his bare feet and legs, scalding them.

The Disposition: The trial court refused to throw the case out, which was appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed that Watts had a valid claim and that the case should go to a jury.

Clinton v. Gunn-Willis Lumber Company, et al., 49 S.E.2d 143, 77 Ga. App. 643 (1948)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: George Washington Clinton, age 17, was playing barefoot in a huge pile of sawdust at the Lumber Company, along with a bunch of friends. He was "sawdust diving". It had rained recently. While executing a dive, his head came within a foot and a half of an overhead power line, which sparked down and severely injured him.

The Disposition: The trial court threw the case out of court. The court of appeals overturned, based on the Lumber Company's knowledge that children regularly played there and that they kept adding sawdust until the wire was within 4 1/2 feet of the sawdust pile.

Planters Electric Membership Corporation v. Burke, 105 S.E.2d 787, 98 Ga. App. 380 (1958)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: Ronald Burke, age 13, was killed when the aerial he was removing, while barefoot, touched uninsulated overhead power lines. The ground was quite wet from recent rain. The power line was only 10 feet above the ground.

The Disposition: The power company asked that the case be thrown out of court. The trial court refused to do so, and that is what was under appeal. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court.

United States Casualty Company et al. v. Thomas et al., 127 S.E.2d 169, 106 Ga. App. 441 (1962)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: This is a heart attack case, and is of interest only for the quote from the opinion.

Of Interest: From the opinion: "There was a time when we were told that the dew became poisonous in dog days and we were forbidden to walk barefoot through the weeds and grass before the sun had dried it off. Surely we now know that dog days have no such poisonous effect!"

Lamb v. The Redemptorist Fathers of Georgia, Inc., 142 S.E.2d 278, 111 Ga. App. 491 (1965)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: Bobby Ray Lamb, a minor, cut his bare foot on a fragment of a tin can by the edge of the pool run by The Redeptorist Fathers (a parochial school).

The Disposition: The trial court threw the case out of court. The Court of Appeals reversed, based on the fact that the pool had negligently allowed the grass to grow to over 6 inches, thus hiding the tin can and other debris in the grass, in an area that they knew people regularly went barefoot.

Of Interest: This is one of the cases cited by the Columbus Metropolitan Library as part of my lawsuit.

Ray v. State, 351 S.E.2d 490, 181 Ga. App. 42 (1986)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia

The Situation: This is a criminal case of no interest other than the quote.

Of Interest: From the concurring opinion: "As to intimation of opinion by the Judge, it is said: 'The province of the jury as the exclusive arbiters of facts is holy ground, not to be approached by the Judge even with bare feet and uncovered head. The Judge should sit on the bench the calm and impartial incarnation of law, as silent as the Sphinx on contested questions of fact.' Taylor v. State, 2 Ga. App. 723, 729 (59 S.E. 12) (1907)."

Keown v. Keown, 394 S.W.2d 915 (1965)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

The Situation: Charles Keown sued his father, Fred Keown, for injuries sustained by slipping (barefoot) in his father's new shower stall. For some reason the bath mat was upside down.

The Disposition: The trial court awarded $5,000. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying, first of all, that the son knew as much about the upside-down mat as the father, and also that "when he stood barefoot on the mat it is almost unbelievable that he could not feel the cups press against the soles of his feet."

McDermott, et al. v. Minnie Jester, et al., 466 So. 2d 795 (1985)

The Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 4th Circuit

The Situation: Cindy Ann McDermott, age 16, ran barefoot in a bathrobe at night on the sidewalk in front of her house, tripped on a raised section, fell, broke her arm, and died of an embolism. The house was rented; she sued the owner and the city (New Orleans).

The Disposition: The trial court dismissed the action, saying that Cindy's "conduct fell below the standard to which she should have conformed for her own safety and protection." The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal.

Brown v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 514 So. 2d 439 (1987)

The Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana

The Situation: Marcus Brown, aged 22 months, got his finger caught in the edge of an escalator.

The Disposition: The trial court awarded $1,500; the appeals court raised it to $3,000. The supreme court upheld the award.

Of Interest: While not a barefoot case, this discusses escalators in general, and the duty of owners to warn of their dangers. This shows why many escalators have a "no barefeet" signs.

Parfait v. Terrebonne General Medical Center, 638 So. 2d 1140 (1994)

The Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1st Circuit

The Situation: Maryal Parfait stepped on a sliver of glass in the emergency room of the Medical Center, barefoot, which accompanying a friend. This made her jump and injure her knee.

The Disposition: The action was dismissed by the trial court, which said that the hospital had no affirmative knowledge of the glass, and that she did not exercise reasonable care by removing her shoes in an emergency room. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Ziegel v. South Central Bell, 635 So. 2d 314 (1994)

The Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 5th Circuit

The Situation: James Ziegel cut his foot while running barefoot in his own back yard. He cut his foot on a South Central Bell phone box that was in a state of disrepair.

The Disposition: Based on evidence that Bell knew of the condition of the box, and that they only inspected it 8 months after the accident, the trial court awarded $5,200. The Court of Appeals upheld the award, noting that "we believe that there is great utility in a child's being able to play safely in his own back yard, at any time, without fear that he will be injured on a piece of equipment over which whose condition he has no control."

Mondawmin Corp. v. Kres, 258 Md. 307, 266 A.2d 8 (1970)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

The Situation: Isabel Kres, age 65, slipped and fell in a mall at the bottom of some stairs which were wet from a nearby fountain. She had on shoes with leather soles and rubber heels. She broke her hip.

The Disposition: The trial court refused to issue a directed verdict for the mall, and then, after Mrs. Kres was awarded damages, refused to consider a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court.

Of Interest: Testifying for Mrs. Kres was James R. Edmonds, III, a registered architect. As part of his testimony, "[he] also stated that the effect of water on the surface of the steps would make them slippery. He said in regard to the character of footwear, that going barefoot would be the least slippery, "leather would be the next less slippery" and "rubber would be the most slippery * * *."

Arshack v. Carl M. Freeman Associates Inc., 260 Md. 269, 272 A.2d 30 (1971)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

The Situation: Danny Arshack, age 11, cut his foot on a piece of glass while walking barefoot on the grass of his apartment complex.

The Disposition: The trial court found that the apartment complex was not negligent, via a directed verdict. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

Of Interest: According to the testimony, Danny went barefoot a lot during the summer. While his mother made "symbolic objection", she did not stop him (and even went barefoot around the complex herself sometimes).

Diorio v. Penny, 331 N.C. 726, 417 S.E.2d 457 (1992)

The Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina

The Situation: The DiOrios rented their apartment from the Pennys. One night, Katheryn DiOrios slipped while walking down the stairs barefoot and injured herself.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment for the Pennys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court also affirmed the judgment, for reason of contributory negligence (summary judgment for on contributory negligence is quite rare as it is usually an issue for a jury). But this one was too obvious.

Sauer v. Hebrew Institute of Long Island, 233 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 17 A.D.2d 245 (1962)

The Court: Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 1st Department

The Situation: Neil Sauer, age 13, was playing a water game at a summer camp when he slipped on wet grass, barefoot, and hit his head on concrete.

The Disposition: The trial court awarded $15,000. The Appeals Court overturned, saying that there was nt cause to apply liability.

Of Interest: A quote: "Nor is it, indeed, clearly demonstrated that, in view of the infant plaintiff's bare feet, the wetness of the grass played any effective part in his falling."

Brod v. Central School District No. 1 of the Towns of Sand Lake and Poestenkill, et al., 386 N.Y.S.2d 125; 53 A.D.2d 1002 (1976)

The Court: Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Situation: William Brod, a 9-year old boy, forgot his sneakers for gym, so his teacher made him participate barefooted. While running after a ball, supposedly his bare feet stuck to the floor and he fell, losing two teeth. The teacher claimed that he just fell over his own two feet.

The Disposition: The trial court found the school negligent with damages awarded. The appeals court reduced the amount of damages.

Cowan v. Pearson, 354 P.2d 194, 1959 OK 83 (1959)

The Court: Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma

The Situation: Roy Cowan, age 15, was cleaning an empty pool that had a lot of scum in it. He slipped, barefoot, and hurt his back.

The Disposition: The trial court threw the case out of court. The Supreme Court upheld.

Herren v. Bonham, 825 P.2d 1321, 1992 OK 10 (1992)

The Court: Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma

The Situation: Wilma Herren was mowing the grass of her rented house barefoot. She backed into a stump, tripped, and her foot slipped under the mower, severing her big toe. She sued the landlord.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord, saying he had no duty to warn of the open and obvious stumps. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision, saying that the tenants should have been able to discover the stumps without help from the landlord.

Bradley v. Franklin County Prison, 674 A.2d 363 (1996)

The Court:

The Situation: Bradley slipped and fell on wet tile in the shower area of the prison. It was not non-slip tile.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment for the prison. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the prison was not eligible for governmental immunity.

Livingston v. Upper Cumberland Human Resource Agency, unpublished (1997)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville

The Situation: David Livingston, age 13, while walking barefoot in a grassy area at a church retreat, stepped into a vertical, jagged clay pipe and lacerated his leg just below the knee.

The Disposition: The trial court awarded extensive damages, assessing Livingston as 5% contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

Of Interest: This injury looks unrelated to being barefoot.

Sharpe v. Adam Dante Corp. d/b/a Adam & Eve Health Spa, 468 S.W.2d 167 (1971)

The Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 5th District, Dallas

The Situation: Beulah Sharpe slipped and fell, barefoot, on wet tile at a spa.

The Disposition: The trial court granted summary judgment to the spa. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the issue of contributory negligence should have gone before a jury.

Cecil v. T.M.E. Investments, et al., unpublished (1994)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, 13th District

The Situation: Norma Cecil slipped on the tile between the pool and hot tub of the spa. Cecil sued both the spa and the company that made the tiles.

The Disposition: The trial court issued a directed verdict on some of the claims, and the jury ruled against Cecil on negligence and design-defect claims. Due to some irregularities in the evidence, the court of appeals ordered a new trial.

Bader v. Westfield Insurance Company, et al., unpublished (1997)

The Court: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 3

The Situation: Bruce Bader sued his brother Jeff when Bruce injured his knee while playing a family volleyball game barefoot.

The Disposition: The jury found no negligence. The trial court judge overturned the verdict. The Court of Appeals overruled the trial court judge, reinstating the jury verdict of no negligence.

Burgess v. Jefferson, 245 S.E.2d 626, 162 W.Va. 1 (1978)

The Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

The Situation: Judy Burgess owns a mobile home adjacent to a golf course. She cut her foot on broken glass that resulted from a golf ball that went through her window. The cut became infected.

The Disposition: The trial jury found the golf course negligent. The trial judge overturned the verdict. The Supreme Court overruled the trial judge and reinstated the verdict in favor of Judy Burgess. The jury was the proper place to decide the application of the facts in the case, including any contributory negligence.