holding that when reasonable persons could differ on inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is inappropriate
How later courts described this case
- holding that when reasonable persons could differ on inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, summary judgment is inappropriate
- “There is nothing wrong with a [slip-and-fall] case built around sufficient circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances are proved and not merely presumed.”
- scintilla rule applicable to summary judgments
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Saunders v. Register, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 4076 (1986)
Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Co., 293 Ala. 686, 309 So.2d 818 (1975), is distinguishable.
Distinguished by Tice v. Tice, 361 So. 2d 1051 (1978)
Folmar, supra, is distinguishable from the case at hand, however.
The opinion
HEFLIN, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I agree, basically, with the opinion of Justice Maddox in this cause, but feel that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to make a jury question as to what Mrs. Folmar tripped over. However, I do not believe that there is a scintilla of evidence pertaining to- negligence. The facts of this case do not qualify to- come within the purview of First National Bank of Mobile v. Ambrose, 270 Ala. 371 , 119 So.2d 18 (1960).