This case arose from an incident that occurred on the premises of BWB&O’s client, a large wholesale retailer. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered serious injuries resulting from a slip and fall that occurred inside a warehouse owned by BWB&O’s client. Plaintiff asserted a negligence claim against BWB&O’s client under a theory of premises liability, alleging that BWB&O’s client had actual knowledge of the substance on which Plaintiff slipped, and that the warehouse failed to remedy the same.
It was undisputed that BWB&O’s client had prior knowledge of the substance. However, Plaintiff conceded at her deposition that an employee of BWB&O’s client had warned Plaintiff of the substance moments before the slip and fall occurred.
At the arbitration hearing, Plaintiff offered testimony that materially conflicted with her deposition, allowing John and Ryan to effectively impeach Plaintiff and undermine her credibility. The theme of the defense was that Plaintiff’s knowledge of the substance was equal to that of BWB&O’s client, which rendered the substance open and obvious. Following the hearing, the Arbitrator issued a decision finding in favor of BWB&O’s client and awarding Plaintiff nothing.