“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A consumer severely injured from a fall in an auto parts store’s parking lot sought relief from the store.
What happened in this case?
Eighty-year old Bernard Keenan slipped and fell on some oil in a parking lot of an O’Reilly Auto Parts chain store in Michigan, causing severe injury. A district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, maintaining that O’Reilly did not have notice of the hazardous condition before the fall. Keenan appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
Trump judge John Nalbandian cast the deciding vote to support an opinion by George W Bush chief judge Jeffrey Sutton that affirmed the decision against Keenan for the same reasons as the district court. George W Bush judge Richard Griffin dissented in the May ruling in Keenan v O’Reilly Auto Parts.
Why did Judge Griffin dissent?
Following the accepted principle that the evidence in a summary judgment case must be interpreted in favor of the losing party, Judge Griffin explained that the record clearly reveals a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether Keenan gave O’Reilly notice of a hazardous condition in the parking lot that should have precluded summary judgment. The fact that Keenan’s testimony was unclear as to whether the condition was oil on the ground or “a mess,” Griffin noted, should have made no difference. The majority was simply wrong, he concluded, in upholding summary judgment against Keenan. The decision should have been made by a jury.
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling made possible by Trump judge Nalbandian obviously prevents Bernard Keenan from recovering any damages for the injury he suffered in the O’Reilly store. In addition, it sets a bad precedent in cases brought by customers like Keenan against large stores for injuries they suffer, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.