Swan Lake Holdings, LLC (“Swan Lake”), appeals the denial of its motion for judgment on the evidence and the jury’s verdict finding it thirty-five percent at fault on the premises liability complaint filed by Dean and Denielle Hiles. Swan Lake raises three issues, which we restate as follows:
I. Whether the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment on the evidence;
II. Whether Swan Lake waived its claim that the trial court abused its discretion in giving jury instruction number five; and
III. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in giving jury instruction number six.
Conclusion (slip op. at 11, 12, 15): We conclude that the trial court properly denied Swan Lake’s motion for judgment on the evidence . . . We conclude that Swan Lake has waived its argument on jury instruction number five . . . We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by giving instruction number six. Affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 9-10): We conclude that there is evidence upon which reasonable people could conclude that Swan Lake knew or by the exercise of reasonable care would have discovered that the Overhang had been leaking for over a year, which would indicate that a dangerous condition existed with respect to the Overhang. Accordingly, the evidence here was sufficient under the jury instructions to support each element of the Hileses’ claim.