Steilen v. Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc.

Annette Steilen (plaintiff) and her husband, Paul Steilen, went to a retail store, Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc. (Cabela’s) (defendant), to purchase things for their camper. While walking down an aisle, as Annette turned to look at Paul, who was behind her, her shoulder brushed against a drop-down receiver hitch that was made of steel and was very heavy. As the receiver hitch fell, it hit Annette’s arm, causing her great pain. Annette and Paul picked the hitch up off of the floor, put it back in place, and notified a store manager. The manager filled out an incident report, noting that Annette had brushed against the hitch and that it made contact with her wrist when it fell. Annette’s injury required treatment to the extent that she did not resume employment for four years. Annette sued Cabela’s for negligence, showing a picture demonstrating that the receiver hitch had been hung on the wire shelving rack by one wire unit, allowing it to stick out. Annette claimed that this way of displaying hitches permitted an inference that Cabela’s employees had neglected to adequately secure the hitches when stocking them in this way, causing them to stick out into the aisle and intrude on the customers’ walkway. At trial, Annette requested that the jury be given instructions on res ipsa loquitur. Under res ipsa loquitur, the following three elements had to be met: (1) the instruments that caused harm had to be under the complete control of the defendant or the defendant’s employees; (2) the accident had to be of the type that would not happen without negligence; and (3) the injury suffered by the plaintiff must have been caused by the accident. Annette asserted that Cabela’s had full control of the hitch and that if Cabela’s employees had provided due care, a receiver hitch would not typically have fallen from where it was shelved. Annette asserted that she was unable to provide information related to the accident from Cabela’s and that Cabela’s claimed that there was no video of Annette’s accident. The circuit court declined to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur, holding that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction. The jury’s verdict favored Cabela’s, and Annette appealed, asserting that the circuit court’s refusal to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur was reversible error.