ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling that granted summary judgment to the Board of Regents of Southeast Missouri State University in a premises liability and negligence lawsuit.
The case stems from Mary Beth Fryman’s fall on a staircase at the university during a campus visit, which she claims resulted from dangerous conditions on the stairs.
Fryman sued the board after her fall, alleging the stairs were uneven, steep, unmarked, slippery, unequal in height, inadequately lit and lacked handrails.
Her lawsuit asserted these factors created a hazardous condition that directly caused her injuries.
However, the circuit court initially sided with the board, ruling that sovereign immunity shielded the university from liability because Fryman testified she tripped over her own feet, not a defect in the stairs.
The board argued that Fryman failed to provide substantial evidence of a dangerous condition, relying on testimony from a maintenance worker who stated the stairs were constructed within standard tolerances.
In contrast, Fryman presented an affidavit from her expert, who identified multiple deficiencies in the staircase and opined that these defects caused her fall.
In its ruling, the circuit court emphasized Fryman’s testimony that she tripped over her own feet after being startled by another woman approaching from behind.
This testimony led the court to conclude that the alleged dangerous conditions did not directly cause her injuries, allowing the board to claim sovereign immunity.
On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the cause of Fryman’s injuries.
The appellate court found that Fryman’s expert provided credible evidence linking her fall to the defective condition of the stairs.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the actions of the approaching woman, while potentially contributing to the fall, did not negate the possibility that the staircase defects were also a contributing factor.
The court drew parallels to a similar case, Williams v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, in which a public entity was found liable for injuries resulting from concurrent causes, including a dangerous condition.
"The Board argues that the woman coming up the stairs behind Fryman should be likened to the thrown asphalt and debris in Dale and Patterson," the opinion states. "But those cases are distinguishable. Fryman provided evidence that she fell on stairs that are alleged to have been in a defective condition. Her testimony that she fell on her own two feet is not necessarily inconsistent with her theories regarding the defects in the stairs, particularly given the expert affidavit connecting the fall to condition of the stairs. And unlike the plaintiffs in Dale and Patterson, Fryman provided evidence that she fell on the alleged dangerous condition as it actually existed."
The appellate court emphasized that “the negligence of the defendant need not be the sole cause of the injury” for liability to be established.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals determined that conflicting evidence about the cause of Fryman’s fall created genuine issues of material fact, which are matters for a jury to decide.
As a result, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The appellant was represented by Ron Ribaudo, Duane M. Dreesen II and Joseph L. Goff.
The respondent is represented by Albert M. Spradling III.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District case number: ED112690