Gonzalez v. Aramark Food & Support Servs. Grp. Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | 09-cv-4843 (CBA) |
| Parties | ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK FOOD AND SUPPORT SERVICES GROUP INC., ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, and ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Aramark, a food services contractor and the defendant in this New York state tort suit, moves for summary judgment against Plaintiff Elizabeth Gonzalez. Aramark claims that under New York state law it did not owe a tort duty to Gonzalez and that, even if it did, it did not breach that duty. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court concludes that Aramark has failed to show that it is entitled to Summary Judgment.
The contract also addressed personnel. Aramark was to hire its own employees to supervise the food services department, but the remainder of the food services staff would be employed by Lutheran. Id. at 4-5. Gonzalez was among those Lutheran staff that remained assigned to the food services department when Aramark took over.
The food services operation at Lutheran has several interconnected units. Some employees work in the kitchen preparing food while others serve food in the cafeteria or on the floors with patients. The food that is served to patients begins in the kitchen and is then transported up to a pantry on the floor being served. Once it arrives, the food services employees distribute it to the patients one by one. Since this process can take a while at Lutheran, Aramark used a piece of equipment called a "Burlodge Cart" to keep the food at the proper temperature. The Burlodge Carts used at Lutheran from 2002 up to Gonzalez's accident were Multigen II models. Belisle Dep. at 9. The Multigen II features a refrigerator, an oven, and a heated gantry. Id. According to Myles Davis, Lutheran's Senior Vice President for Corporate Services, Aramark suggested the Burlodge Carts to Lutheran shortly after they took over food services. Davis Dep. at 10; 35-39. Lutheran then placed the order and purchased the carts. Id.
Burlodge Carts have a black, 6-foot-long, half-inch thick power cord. Belisle Dep. at 46; Lee Dep. at 22-25. As one might imagine, this cord could be a tripping hazard if extended across the path of someone walking by the cart. According to Susan Belisle, a clinical manager at Burlodge USA, Burlodge recommends that its carts be positioned so as to avoid this. Belisle Dep. at 40. Aramark was also aware of this potential hazard, so it brought in a Burlodge representative whenthe carts were purchased in 2002 to train food services workers in their use, and it developed a policy that the Burlodge Cart was to be positioned by the door of the pantry and the cord plugged into the outlet just next to the door. Instead of positioning the cart in front of and across the doorway—leaving paths around the cart on either side, across one of which was the power cord—the cart was to be positioned on a diagonal with one edge of the cart against the side of the doorway—such that one could exit the pantry only to the side of the cart without the cord. Id. at 89-100.
Unfortunately, the cart was not positioned this way in Unit 4C/4D on the morning of January 3, 2009. That morning, not only was the cart not angled against the wall, but it was connected with an extension cord so that it could be moved further from the entrance of the pantry. Davis Dep. at 24-25. This created a wider path over which the cord lay. Id.
Gonzalez usually worked in the kitchen preparing food. According to Alicia Haynes, the Patient Services Manager employed by Aramark, this was because Gonzalez had "leg problems" which made it difficult for her to be a server. Haynes Dep. at 53-59. On the morning of January 3, however, a staff member on the team working in Unit 4C/4D failed to come to work. Haynes Dep. at 34-36. This left only two workers, Michael Brown and Yung Chi Lee, on the team. Id. at 35. When Haynes realized this, she sent Gonzalez up to help. Id. By the time Gonzalez arrived, Lee and Brown were almost finished, but they asked her to prepare hot water for tea in the pantry, which would then be brought to a "running truck" so Lee could bring it to patients. Brown Dep. at 53-56. Gonzalez came out of the pantry holding a cup of hot water in either hand. The running truck was parked to the left of the pantry, the side over which the Burlodge Cart's cord was extended. Davis Dep. at 30. As Gonzalez walked past the cart, her left foot hit the cord and she fell, breaking her left femur.
The above facts are largely undisputed, but the parties dispute many other facts underlying this action. First, the parties disagree about the nature and extent of the training provided to employees concerning the Burlodge Carts. Aramark, supported by Haynes's deposition, argues that direct instructions were given by one Herman Crawford on the proper way to position the cart. Haynes Dep. at 94-101. (It is unclear from Haynes's statement whether Crawford was an Aramark employee, though it appears he was.) Aramark also provided a sign-in sheet that indicates that Gonzalez was present at this training. Mot. exh. H. On the other hand, Brown, a fellow food services worker, testified in his deposition that Aramark often trains employees on the positioning of the cart, but that they instruct them to position it across the doorway instead of on a diagonal. Brown Dep. at 28-30; see also Lee Dep. at 34-35. Brown further testified that he had never received training on the use of an extension cord. Id.
Second, the parties dispute which entity, Aramark or Lutheran, was responsible for supervising food services and ensuring the safety of food services operations. Gonzalez submitted lengthy documentation of Aramark's safety policies, which are of course specific to food services. In Haynes's deposition, she acknowledged that she performed supervision rounds during each meal. Haynes Dep. at 25-26. She also claimed that she enforced Aramark's policy on the positioning of the Burlodge Carts. Haynes Dep. at 89. Moreover, it seems clear from the depositions of Gonzalez, Brown, and Lee that they see Aramark as their sole and direct supervisor. Gonzalez Dep. at 139-40; Brown Dep. at 27; 60-61; Lee Dep. at 24-25. Lutheran did, however, have a more generalized safety department, which inspected the Burlodge Carts when they were first purchased. Delucia Dep. at 11. Lutheran also had a safety officer, Bill Killips, who conducted rounds once a week with other supervisors. Id. at 16. Tripping hazards were one of the issues they would look for, but Lutheran had no part in the maintenance of the Carts and the po-sitioning of Burlodge Carts was thought by Lutheran to be Aramark's responsibility. Id. at 12-14; 34.
Third, it is not clear from the deposition testimony exactly how frequently the Burlodge Cart is positioned as it was on January 3, 2009. Both Gonzalez and Brown contend that they have observed the cart improperly positioned on numerous occasions. Gonzalez Dep. at 97; Brown Dep. at 21-22. Fourth, the parties dispute whether employees had complained about a tripping hazard before that date. Haynes claimed that she had never received a complaint about a Burlodge Cart power cord. Haynes Dep. at 101. According to Brown, however, he complained about the cord to Aramark supervisors on more than one occasion, including once to Haynes. Brown Dep. at 27, 60-61.
Finally, the parties dispute who plugged the cord in that morning. Opp. at 20-21. Brown initially suggested during his deposition that Gonzalez plugged in the cord. Brown Dep. at 52. But, as Gonzalez points out, there is also evidence in the record that the cart was already in place at the time Gonzalez arrived, and that Brown and Lee were almost finished serving food by then. Brown Dep. at 48-53. This, Gonzalez argues, suggests that the Burlodge Cart was already in use. Opp. at 21.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Though the movant bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, this burden is "discharged by showing—that is by pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Ce-lotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Should the movant carry its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to provide evidence establishing a question of fact. See Miner v. Clinton County, 541 F.3d 464, 471 (2d Cir. 2008). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
Gonzalez's theory of liability is common law negligence....
To continue reading
Request your trial