SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
Washington, DC Case Summary
Jenkins v. Red Coats, Inc.
D.C. Court of Appeals
No. 24-CV-0502
Decided: July 17, 2025
Determining whether someone used ordinary or reasonable care when mopping a floor is within the common knowledge and experience of an ordinary person.
Background
Plaintiff was walking out of a building where an employee of Defendant’s janitorial services company was mopping. She slipped and fell on the wet floor, suffering personal injuries. Plaintiff claimed that she did not see a sign saying wet floor and filed a negligence claim. The Trial Court originally granted summary judgment in Defendant’s favor, but the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the decision because the Trial Court failed to adequately “explain why expert testimony was necessary in the particular circumstances of this case.” The Court of Appeals remanded for the Trial Court “to consider anew whether expert testimony was or was not required in the particular circumstances of this case and to explain its conclusion on that point.” The Trial Court reaffirmed the entry of summary judgment on remand. The Trial Court noted that anything in addition to placing a wet floor sign in Plaintiff’s line of sight was beyond the scope of an ordinary person and as such, expert testimony was required. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded for trial. The Court of Appeals held that determining whether someone used ordinary or reasonable care when mopping the floor is within the common knowledge and experience of an ordinary person. It specifically held, citing cases from other jurisdictions, that like the adequacy of warnings in products liability cases, the considerations for a jury in a slip and fall are: “(1) the extent of the defendant’s undertaking to warn; (2) whether a reasonable person would have seen and understood the warning . . . and (3) whether the warning was sufficient to apprise the individual of the specific danger ultimately encountered.” The Court of Appeals held that the slip and fall at issue did not require expert testimony on this point.
Questions about this case can be directed to Scott Edley at (771) 210-5150 or sedley@tthlaw.com.