Landmark Case:

Koko Motel, Inc. v. Mayo

November 21, 2002, Seventh Court of Appeals, Amarillo: The jury in trial court awarded $1,300,000 as a result of determining that the motel owner reasonably should have known of dangerous circumstances that caused injury to a motel guest. The plaintiff slipped on a piece of concrete on the ground, resulting in a fracture of the metatarsal bone in plaintiff's foot. After the injury, plaintiff was assisted by others into the lobby, where the receptionist proclaimed that she had "hoped to get maintenance to clean that up, we've told them about it." The defendant appealed claiming that the trial court should have charged the jury as to whether the Defendant controlled the manner the plumber conducted his duties and whether the evidence was insufficient to show that D had actual or constructive knowledge of the premises defect. Also, the Defendant, on appeal, claimed the trial court erred by denying the Defendant's motion for a mistrial after both parties introduced substantial evidence on the issue of control prior to the Plaintiff non-suiting his action for negligent activity. Defendant's further claimed that the court erred in admitting evidence that was produced prior to the trial. Defendant's also appealed based on the evidence being insufficient to support the damages awarded by the jury, for lost wages and compensation. The appellate court affirmed the jury award for Plaintiff.