Melendez v. Target Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2:18-CV-09405-SRC-CLW
• Parties: ISABEL MELENDEZ and ROBERT MELENDEZ Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, ABC CORPS. 110, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

ISABEL MELENDEZ and ROBERT MELENDEZ Plaintiffs,
v.
TARGET CORPORATION, JOHN DOES 1-10, JANE DOES 1-10, ABC CORPS. 110, Defendants.

No. 2:18-CV-09405-SRC-CLW

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

May 23, 2022

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

STANLEY R. CHESLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs Isabel Melendez and Robert Melendez (the “Plaintiffs”), ^[1] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant” or “Target”) opposes the motion and cross-moves for summary judgment. The Court has reviewed the papers submitted and proceeds to rule without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons that follow, both Plaintiffs' and Defendant's respective motions for summary judgment will be denied.

I. Background^[2]

This action arises from a slip-and-fall accident that Melendez experienced at a Target store in Fairfield, New Jersey on August 19, 2016. According to Melendez, as a result of her fall she

1

suffered various injuries to her spine. On March 19, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Target asserting four counts sounding in negligence.

A. The Incident

On the day of the incident, Melendez was scheduled to work at 8:00 A.M. at non-party Prism Billing (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶¶ 1, 2.) Melendez intended to make a “quick run” to Target and did not advise her supervisor that she would be running late. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶¶ 5, 7.) Melendez entered the store shortly after it opened at 8:00 A.M, browsed several aisles near the front of the store, and proceeded to the back of the store. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 4; Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 8.) Other guests entered the store before her. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 17; Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 26.) At some time between 8:01 and 8:05^[3], and while browsing for snacks in the main aisle, Melendez slipped and fell (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 7; Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 19), the cause of which is a central contention in the action.

2

According to Melendez, after she fell, she “felt . . . something wet” in her hand, saw water on the ground, and had water on her jeans. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 8.) Melendez also testified that, after she fell and while still on the ground, several target employees approached her. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 8.) According to Melendez, when she asked the employees whether she was bleeding, one employee responded: “No, I believe it's just wet.” (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 8.)

Alejandra Romani, one of the Target employees who responded to the slip-and-fall, was in an aisle off of the main aisle at the time of the incident. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶¶ 8, 13.) She testified:

We opened the doors so customers could come in because we called and we said everything was clear, so they opened the doors, so people come in. I'm in the market section labeling just about in the middle of the -- the aisle. I hear people go by. Something caught my attention. Someone was walking too fast, you know, the noise from their shoes, so that caught my attention and when I turned I saw a woman pass

I continued working and then I hear the sounds of her shoes That's what caught my attention and then all of a sudden, that stopped and then I heard the sound from the lady or the ow or something like that and so I had to approach her to see what happened.

(Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶¶ 9, 11.) Upon hearing Melendez's fall, Romani proceeded to the main aisle, saw Melendez on the floor, and went to assist her. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 13.) According to Romani, Melendez had “one leg outstretched and the other was behind her.” (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 6.) Romani told Melendez to “remain here” and that she “was going to call someone to come help you.” (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 6.) Romani testified that she called the Target Leader on Duty (“LOD”), Alex Thompson, over the walkie-talkie “to come over to [aisle] F-25 where the cereal was because there was an incident.” (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 5.) Romani testified that she did not see any water on the floor, and that she touched the floor where Melendez fell and it was dry. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 21.) Romani also

3

testified that the sandals which Melendez was wearing at the time of the incident were not wet. (Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶¶ 14, 22.)

Sarah Sisco, another Target employee who responded to Melendez's fall shortly after being notified over walkie talkie of the incident, testified that she: (i) did not recall Melendez saying the floor was wet; (ii) did not recall Thompson commenting that the floor was wet; and (iii) did not say the floor was wet. (Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 8; Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 9.) Sisco further testified that Romani did not say that the floor was wet. (Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 8; Defendant's SMF Supplement ¶ 9.)

B. The Guest Incident and LOD Investigation Reports

Immediately following the incident, LOD Thompson met with Melendez and interviewed her consistent with Target's “Managing Guest Incidents” procedures. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 10.) In connection with those procedures, Thompson prepared two documents: (i) a Guest Incident Report, which he prepared with Melendez; and (ii) an LOD Investigation Report. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 11.) In the Guest Incident Report, Melendez reported that the cause of the incident was “a wetness about one to three drops.” (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 11.) In a section asking whether the floor was “clean and dry, ” Melendez indicated that it was not and reported that “[t]here were small water (it was clear) droplets.” (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 11.) Melendez indicated on the form that her clothes were not “wet or damaged.” (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 11.) Melendez signed the Guest Incident Report after the report was completed. (Defendant's Cross-Motion SMF ¶ 16.)

In the LOD Investigation Report, Thompson indicated “no” in response to the question “[w]as the floor/ground clean and dry at the time of the incident.” (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 12.) In response to a follow-up question asking him to “describe the condition of the floor/ground at time

4

of incident, ” Thompson appears to have answered “visually verified.”^[4] (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 12.) Notwithstanding the contents of the LOD Investigation Report, Thompson testified that he did not observe any water or liquid on the floor when he arrived at the scene and that he filled out the LOD Investigation Report incorrectly. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 14.)

C. Pre-Opening Cleaning

Video surveillance of the store shows the main aisle being cleaned with a blue floor cleaning machine at or around 7:38 A.M. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 22.) Surveillance also shows a “Caution-Wet Floor” sign in the store's main aisle (though not located at the spot of the slip-and-fall), which remained in place until at or around 8:05 A.M.-after the slip-and-fall incident. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 22.) No customers were within the store prior to the store's 8:00 opening. (Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 22.)

Numerous Target employees testified that they did not observe any water at or around the site of Melendez's slip-and-fall on the morning of the incident:

• Sarah Sisco. Sisco testified that from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 A.M. before the store opened on the day of the incident, she walked the market area, including the main/green aisle several times, making observations as to whether the floor was safe to open for guests, and looking for spills or anything else on the floor. (Defendant's Cross-Motion SMF ¶ 29.) Video evidence establishes that Sisco walked down the main aisle at or around 7:43 A.M. (Plaintiffs' Ex. E; see also Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 18.) Sisco testified that when she walked the green aisle, she made observations for anything that was on the floor, and there were no spills. (Defendant's Cross-Motion SMF ¶ 32.) When asked whether any steps were taken regarding Target's spill cleanup procedures, Sisco testified that “There were no spills that day, I would have reported it to an LOD.” (Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 18.)

5

• Alejandra Romani. Romani testified that she walked the area around where the fall occurred 5 minutes prior to the store opening. She observed that the area was dry and testified that she did not see anyone cleaning the floors from the cleaning company in the area from 7:55 until the incident. (Defendant's SMF Response ¶ 18.)

• Alexander Thompson. Thompson testified that he conducted a morning walk through the store prior to the 8:00 A.M. opening, including near the site of the incident, and that he did not observe any spills or hazardous conditions. (Defendant's Cross-Motion SMF ¶ 25.)

• John Dix. Dix, another Target employee present at the store the day of the incident, testified that as part of his morning routine, prior to the store opening he walked the entire sales floor, including the main aisle, to make sure the floor was in good condition and would address any issues. (Defendant's Cross-Motion SMF ¶ 26.)

Numerous deponents testified that they had never or only rarely observed the floor cleaning machine leaving water on the floor while in use. (See Defendant's SMF Response ¶¶ 18; 20.) However, Thompson testified that he has witnessed instances where the cleaning machine leaves a “residue” on the ground:

Q. Did you ever see that machine being used?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And did you ever observe - in the use of that machine did you ever see any residue or any water or liquid resulting from that machine being used?

A. Yes.

Q. And can you tell me how you observed that, what did you see?

A. Just like a clear substance, a residue. So there would be a dry part of the floor and then a part of the floor that looked a little moist.

(Plaintiffs' SMF ¶ 18.) No witness observed any residue from the cleaning machine on the day of the...