Esquivel v. Target Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 13-11398-FDS |
| Parties | SANTA LIDIA ESQUIVEL, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an action in negligence arising out of a slip-and-fall incident. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.
On June 8, 2010, plaintiff Santa Lidia Esquivel slipped and fell on a pool of liquid in a Target store in Somerville, Massachusetts, operated by defendant Target Corporation. She now brings suit, alleging that her slip and fall was caused by defendant's negligent failure to clean up the liquid.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment, contending that it did not breach its duty of care towards plaintiff. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.
The following facts are undisputed.
Santa Lidia Esquivel is a Massachusetts citizen residing in Malden, Massachusetts. (Notice of Removal ¶6(b)). Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with a principal placeof business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Id. ¶ 6(a)). Target owns and operates the Target store located at 180 Somerville Avenue in Somerville, Massachusetts. (Pl. SMF ¶ 5).
On June 8, 2010, Esquivel went to the Somerville Target store to purchase sheets. (Id. ¶ 6). She went to the rear left corner of the store where sheets were sold. (Def. SMF ¶¶ 7, 26). In that area of the store, there was an emergency exit and a locked door to the store's electric room. Id. ¶ 28). There were no beverages for sale in that area of the store. (Id. ¶ 27).
When stepping forward to get the sheets she wanted to purchase, Esquivel slipped in a pool of liquid and fell. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 12). Both her feet slipped, and her blouse and the right side of her pants became wet. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11; Pl. SMF ¶ 29). Although Esquivel did not see the liquid before she fell, she saw it afterwards, describing it as "quite a lot of water" about the size of an automobile tire. (Pl. SMF ¶ 24; Def. SMF ¶¶ 10, 12). A Target incident report described the aisle as having "plenty of water on the floor." (Pl. SMF ¶ 28). The liquid looked clear, and the edge of the pool was approximately a foot from the shelf holding the sheets. (Def. SMF ¶¶ 12, 15). There was no investigation into what the liquid was before it was cleaned up. (Andrade Dep. at 55). Esquivel did not know where the liquid came from or how long it had been there. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14).
As a result of her fall, Esquivel tore her rotator cuff. (Pl. SMF ¶ 8). She underwent surgery to repair the tear. (Id. ¶ 9). She continues to suffer chronic pain in her shoulder and the injury prevented her from working for four months. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12). She also contends that her injuries prevent her from being able to dance. (Id. ¶ 14).
On June 8, 2010, twenty-three employees were working at the Somerville Target store. (Pl. SMF ¶ 17). Sixteen or seventeen of those employees were assigned to handle various areasof the store. (Id. ¶ 16). The Somerville Target store is one of the smallest Target stores in the area. (Andrade Dep. at 28).
Target employees are trained to walk their departments and adjacent areas to monitor the cleanliness and neatness of the store. (Pl. SMF ¶ 40). At her deposition, Andrade testified that employees are supposed to monitor the store "[h]our by hour, minute through minute as you walk through the store." (Andrade Dep. at 20). If an employee finds a spill in an aisle, he or she is responsible for cleaning it up. (Id. ¶ 38).
No Target employee had been in the area where Esquivel fell for approximately 30 minutes. (Andrade Dep. at 59). At her deposition, Andrade was asked about that time period:
(Id. at 58-59) (objections to questions omitted).
When Andrade was asked if the store's employees failed to follow Target's guidelines on June 8, 2010, her testimony was as follows:
(Andrade Dep. at 62-63) (objections to questions omitted). She later gave somewhatcontradictory answers to similar questions:
(Id. at 64-66).
In 2012, the Somerville Target store was remodeled, and the plumbing in the building was replaced. (Id. at 33-34). Andrade testified that she remembered there was one leak from the plumbing in the ceiling in the cosmetics department prior to the remodel. (Id. at 33). There is no evidence that the liquid on the floor was caused by a plumbing leak or any other problem in the building.
On May 22, 2013, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case in Middlesex Superior Court. The complaint alleges two claims: negligence and failure to warn. On June 11, defendant removed the case to this Court.
On May 16, 2014, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.
The role of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial." Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party 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). A genuine issue is "one that must be decided at trial because the evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant . . . would permit a rational fact finder to resolve the issue in favor of either party." Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990). In evaluating asummary judgment motion, the court indulges all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. O'Connor v. Steeves, 994 F.2d 905, 907 (1st Cir. 1993). When "a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). The non-moving party may not simply "rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading," but instead must "present affirmative evidence." Id. at 256-57.
The complaint first alleges that defendant was negligent. "Negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances." Guzman v. Pring-Wilson, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 430 432 (2012) (quoting Morgan v. Lalumiere, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 262, 267 (1986)). "To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relation between the breach of the duty and the damage." Cracchiolo v. Eastern Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64, 69 (1st Cir. 2014) (quoting Jupin v. Kask, 447 Mass. 141, 146 (2006)); see also Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc., 457 Mass. 234, 239-40 (2010).
Defendant contends that it did not breach the duty of care that it owed plaintiff. Where, as here, the plaintiff is an invitee who is "invited onto the property by the property owner for the property owner's benefit, the property owner owe[s] a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances . . . ." Papadopoulos v.Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 371 (2010) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). In slip-and-fall cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial