Collins v. Walmart Stores E., LP
| Decision Date | 27 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-1691 (ST) |
| Parties | JOSEPH COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. WALMART STORES EAST, LP, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
This case was brought by Plaintiff, Joseph Collins, who slipped and fell on a clothes hanger on the floor of a Walmart store located in Uniondale, New York. Mr. Collins alleges that the accident caused him injury and was the result of negligence by the Defendant, Walmart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”). He seeks damages for injuries he alleges were caused by his fall. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons enumerated below, I GRANT the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
On July 22, 2017, Plaintiff drove his son and his friend to the Walmart located at 1123 Uniondale Ave in Uniondale, NY. See Pl. Compl., ECF No. 1-1; Def. R. 56.1 Br ¶ 3, ECF No. 38-1. Plaintiff parked in the fire lane and waited in the car with his son while his friend went inside the store to return a bicycle. Collins Dep., 12-13, ECF No 38-6. After approximately ten minutes, Plaintiff, concerned about his friend's whereabouts, left his vehicle to go inside and look for him. Id. at 13; Def. R. 56.1 Br ¶ 5. Plaintiff spent approximately three minutes inside the store looking for his friend. Def. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 7. During those three minutes, Plaintiff walked to the bicycle section in the back and, upon not finding his friend, began walking to the front of the store. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 4, ECF No. 39.
Plaintiff walked down the main aisle in the middle of the store (known as the “action alley”), and then turned into the women's clothing department to “cut[] through the aisle.” Def. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 10; Collins Dep., 20-21. It was in this department where the incident at issue in this case occurred.
Plaintiff testified that, approximately four feet into the women's clothing department, he “slipped on a hanger in the middle of the aisle.” Def. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 11. Plaintiff did not see the hanger before slipping on it; only after falling to the ground did he identify that he had slipped on the hanger. Collins Dep., 21-23. No individual, to Plaintiff's knowledge, saw him fall, and no individual has submitted a statement saying they witnessed the fall. Collins Dep., 30. Surveillance video of the surrounding area suggested that the accident occurred at approximately 10:45 A.M. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 36.
A picture is attached to Mr. Collins' affidavit which shows a similar hanger on the ground in the women's clothing department where the incident occurred. See Massaro Dec., Exh. A, ECF No. 39-3 (“Collins Aff.”); Collins Dep. 26. Though the hanger depicted is the same color and model as the hanger involved in the accident, Plaintiff does not believe it is the same hanger, and Plaintiff testified that the location of the hanger in the photo, while in the same area as his fall, is not the same position as where the hanger was at the time of Plaintiff's accident. Collins Dep. 26; Collins Aff. ¶ 8. The photo depicts a light-colored hanger on a brown naturally patterned wood floor.
The force of Plaintiff slipping on the hanger caused it to move to a location by a clothing rack. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 12. When Plaintiff exited the women's clothing department he did so through a different route than he entered. Id. at ¶ 13.
After exiting the department, Plaintiff told a cashier about the incident and then spoke with a manager. Id. at ¶ 14. He then filled out an incident report. That incident report says, “[I] was walking through [the] Isle [sic] and sli[p]ped and fell on a hanger on the floor[,] got up from the floor and told a worker what took place.” Massaro Dec., Exh. I, ECF No. 39-11 (“Incident Rep.”). Plaintiff indicated the incident happened “between lady department.” Id. When Plaintiff alerted the cashier to the incident, he also advised her to pick up the hanger off the floor, which she did before taking any pictures. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶¶ 30, 32, 34. Walmart did not preserve the hanger Plaintiff slipped on. Id. at ¶ 49.
Plaintiff claims as a result of his fall, he suffered “severe and permanent injuries.” Pl. Compl. ¶ 18.
Defendant turned over four surveillance videos to Plaintiff, which are enumerated based on their position on the physical DVD enclosed in Plaintiff's submission. Video 3 is from a camera which captured a portion of the Walmart's “action alley,” a thoroughfare through which customers can walk throughout the whole store and enter departments. Def. R. 56.1 Repl. Br., ¶¶ 54-55, ECF No. 40; Luna Dep., 18, ECF No. 38-8. Defendant disclosed video from 10:42:35 A.M. to 10:48:25 A.M. from that camera. Massaro Dec., Exh. D, ECF No. 39-6 ( ). Plaintiff is shown in the “action alley” and making a right hand turn into a department at 10:45:44 A.M.. Id.; Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 54. That turn would have put him in the portion of the store containing the women's clothing department. Def. R. 56.1 Repl. Br. ¶ 56.
The Asset Protection Manager assigned to this case by Defendant, Magali Rodriguez Luna, says there was a video showing Plaintiff exiting the woman's clothing department at 10:46 A.M.. Luna Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No 38-7. She says she thought she saved and sent that clip to Claims Management Inc., who administers claims on behalf of Defendant, but that CMI informed her it never received that clip. Id. No video showing Plaintiff exiting the women's clothing department was produced by Defendant.
Video 2 is an overhead shot of a register. Surv. Video Disk. The entire video disclosed from that camera was from 10:45:45 A.M. to 10:48:15 A.M.. Id. A man dressed in similar clothing and of a similar build to Plaintiff in Video 3 walks by the register at 10:46:36. Id.
Video 4 and Video 1 are shots of the store's entrances/exits. Video 4 contains video from 9:45:02 A.M. through 11:50:41 A.M.. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 52. Defendant believes Plaintiff is observed between approximately 10:48:53 A.M. and 10:49:31 A.M.. Def. R. 56.1 Repl. Br. ¶ 52. That individual, wearing the same clothing as Plaintiff in Video 3, is observed conversing with a Walmart employee who appears to direct him towards something out of frame. Surv. Video Disk. The individual identified then leaves the frame. Video 1 contains video from a different camera from 9:39:57 A.M. until 11:48:09 A.M.. Pl. R. 56.1 Br. ¶ 53. Defendant believes Plaintiff can be observed at approximately 10:49:31 A.M. and leaves the shot at approximately 10:51:17. Def. R. 56.1 Repl. Br., ¶ 53. During that timeframe, the individual Defendant identifies as Plaintiff (who is wearing the same clothing) can be observed appearing to flag someone down and speaking with someone just out of frame. Surv. Video Disk.
Defendant says it has turned over all relevant video it has in its possession and claims no camera in the store captured Plaintiff's fall or area where Plaintiff fell. Def. R. 56.1 Repl. Br. ¶ 60; Massaro Dec., Exh. J, ¶ 13, ECF No. 39-12. The reason for this, as Ms. Luna explained in her deposition, is that “there is no camera in ladies, above ladies.. .because of where the fitting room is located right in the middle.we can't have cameras too close to the fitting room where we can see, you know.” Luna Dep., 24, 28.
Ms. Luna also provides a rationale for why there is substantially more video from the cameras at the entrance/exit of the store than from the action alley or register cameras: Luna Aff. ¶ 6.
The video request form submitted by Ms. Luna asked if footage was available of “the incident.” Ms. Luna checked “yes.” Just below on the form, she was asked to describe what is seen on the video, and she wrote, “10:45:44 customer enters ladies [sic] apparel department, at 10:46:00 customer observed in ladies [sic] department exiting the area.” Massaro Dec., Exh. C, ECF No. 39-5 (“Video Request Form”). The video request form also instructed her to “collect 2 copies (on DVD)” of Id. Ms. Luna initialed next to that instruction. Id.
Testimony was also offered on the Uniondale Walmart's inspection practice. Beatrice Nwatu, Assistant Manager at the Uniondale Walmart at the time of the incident, testified that it was the policy at that Walmart to do a “safety sweep” every hour where associates would stop what they were doing, walk around, and take care of any hazards found on the floor. Nwatu Dep., 28. Those sweeps would take place on the hour. Id. Ms. Luna testified that inspections took place every two hours but did not know the exact schedule of those inspections. Luna Dep., 58. Any safety sweeps that occurred were not documented. Nwatu Dep., 23.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). An issue of fact is material if the fact “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law...” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute exists as to a material fact when “evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for...
To continue reading
Request your trial