May I please record?
Thank you, Your Honor.
My name is Bruce Culpepper.
I represent the appellate in this case, Mrs. Wanda Harkins.
The appellees are Finneke, Window Cleaning, and Joseph Hospital.
This is a case that involves a trip in fall with regard to a hose that was installed in
the back of the house.
It was installed in the back of the house.
The hoes, in the case of Brookie, there was and they did, in fact, Mr. Brookie, I believe,
did walk around the pallet at least, it said at least two or three times.
Mr. Culpepper, you did not mention whether you wanted to reserve rebuttal time.
I'm sorry, I did not.
But you're down to five minutes left.
Okay.
So, use them as you please.
Your Honor, let me, let's see if I can conclude at this point, and I would like to preserve
at least three minutes or so.
If I, if needed, and I may not, I think we've gone through it.
I wanted to add one more point.
It seems that MacArthur had changed the burden with regard to a case like this, and I wanted
to read specifically, it's cited in the Miller case.
The Miller case had to do with absence of railing, and Mr. Miller was injured as he
went upstairs, I believe he was carrying bedding or something and fell off and injured himself.
And MacArthur holds specifically, and this is, I'm quoting, in order to prevail on their
motion for summary judgment based on the alleged open and obvious nature of the missing railing,
the Slawbaws, I believe is the name of the appellees, the owners, the Slawbaws, would
have had to conclusively establish that they should not have anticipated the potential
harm to Mr. Miller as a result of the missing railing, notwithstanding his knowledge of
the danger.
In other words, it seems to shift the burden to the owner to say, you should, why did you
not anticipate such an outcome with regard to what appears to be a dangerous situation?
And MacArthur seemed to put the burden to some degree on the defendant to make the answer
and why it is that they did not anticipate a foreseeable injury.
Your Honor, thank you.
I think I've got about three minutes.
You are right at three minutes left.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Good morning.
May it please the court.
Jason Nazar on behalf of the appellees.
My firm represented St. Joseph's Hospital in the matter below, and Ms. Sisti's firm
represented Finneke Window Cleaning.
I will be presenting argument from both appellees today, unless the panel has a question specifically
to Finneke Windows, then I would ask Ms. Sisti to come up and answer that question.
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.