Saunders v. Wal-Mart Stores
| Decision Date | 05 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 3:17-cv-03051 |
| Parties | ANNETTE SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES INC. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Plaintiff Annette Saunders sued Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (improperly named as Wal-Mart Stores Inc.) for negligence after she slipped and fell in its Neptune, New Jersey store. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 50). A telephonic hearing was held on March 4, 2021. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is granted.
On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff shopped at Wal-Mart in Neptune, New Jersey with her friends Toni Willis and Nicole Willis. (Pl. Statement Material Facts ("PSMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 51; Dep. of Anette Saunders ("Saunders Dep.") 45:22 - 46:3, 54:18-21, Ex. D, ECF No. 50-9).1 After she shopped for approximately one hour, Plaintiff went to the beverage aisle to look for Gatorade. (PSMF ¶¶ 2-4). On the right side of the aisle, near the Gatorade, were tall stacks of bottled water. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5). The water was packaged in cases of twenty-four or thirty-six bottles and covered with plastic. (Id. ¶ 5). The cases were stacked on top of wooden crates, and the stacks were more than five feet tall. (Saunders Dep. 50:4-16).
As she approached the shelves, Plaintiff did not see water on the floor. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5). Slipping on the water, Plaintiff grabbed her shopping cart to steady herself, but the cart tipped over and Plaintiff fell on her rear end and her back. (Id. ¶ 3; Saunders Dep. 61:5-19). Plaintiff's shopping companions were not with her at the time of the accident, and no one witnessed her fall. (PSMF ¶ 3; Saunders Dep. 54:12-14).
Once on the floor, Plaintiff observed that water was continuously leaking from at least one broken bottle in the packaged water. (PSMF ¶ 6; Saunders Dep. 50:17-21, 59:10-14). She estimated that there was approximately one bucket or half of one bucket of water on the floor, or about the area of eight pieces of notebook paper. (PSMF ¶ 7; Saunders Dep. 53:3 - 54:8). Unable to rise due to pain from the fall, Plaintiff took several pictures of the water on the floor while waiting for assistance. (PSMF ¶¶ 8-9).
Five to ten minutes later, another shopper walked by and inquired into Plaintiff's wellbeing. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 10). An employee and manager arrived on the scene, brought a wheelchair for Plaintiff, and called Nicole and Toni on the intercom. (Id. ¶ 10). According to Plaintiff, the manager introduced himself as a manager, wheeled her to the front of the store in a wheelchair, asked her questions about her fall, and filled out an incident report on a clipboard, which she signed. (Saunders Dep. 63:18 - 66:4, 72:19 - 73:1). She did not obtain a copy of the incident report or return to the store after the day of the accident. (Saunders Dep. 73:17-24). Plaintiff did not remember the name of the Wal-Mart manager who took the report, but recalled that he was white with light-colored hair, glasses, and some facial hair. (Saunders Dep. 62:5 - 63:17). She testified that he offered to call an ambulance, which she declined. (Saunders Dep. 111:1-5).
Toni and Nicole Willis did not know Plaintiff had fallen until they were called to the front of the store on the intercom. (Dep. of Toni Willis ("Toni Dep.") 16:13-20, Ex. F, ECF No.50-11). They met Plaintiff - in her wheelchair - near the store entrance and observed a Wal-Mart employee or manager asking Plaintiff questions and preparing a report on a clipboard. (PSMF ¶¶ 10-11; Toni Dep. 16:13 - 17:6, 20:21 - 21:9; Dep. of Nicole Willis ("Nicole Dep.") 12:17 - 13:12, Ex. E, ECF No. 50-10). While Toni did not listen to the full conversation between Plaintiff and the manager, she heard them discuss "something about water on the floor." (Toni Dep. 21:11 - 22:7). Toni and Nicole recalled that the manager and another Wal-Mart employee were white men, and that the manager was middle-aged and wore khaki pants and a button-down dress shirt. (Toni Dep. 18:18 - 19:20; Nicole Dep. 12:10-16, 14:1-7).
As they were leaving the store, Plaintiff told Toni and Nicole that she had slipped and fallen on the floor, and that her back hurt. (Toni Dep. 22:12 - 23:10). Toni and Nicole never discussed the incident in more detail with Plaintiff and did not know what caused her to fall. (Toni Dep. 22:16 - 24:5; Nicole Dep. 15:18 - 16:12).
A few days after her fall, Plaintiff went to the emergency room due to her ongoing back pain, which she rated as an eight on a scale of one to ten. (Saunders Dep. 95:3 - 96:3, 108:11-14). She began receiving medical treatment from a pain and spine specialist in 2015. (Saunders Dep. 88:7-24). Due to her injuries from the accident and the medication she was prescribed, she has lost her range of mobility and can no longer engage in physical activities such as riding her bike, doing yardwork, running, and climbing steps. (Saunders Dep. 112:1-10, 165:12-25). She has incurred approximately $45,000.00 in medical expenses to treat her injuries from the fall. .
According to Defendant, the Wal-Mart store in question has no record of this incident, and no store personnel have knowledge of Plaintiff's claims. (Def. Statement UndisputedMaterial Facts ("DSUMF") ¶ 10, ECF No. 50-2). As such, Defendant disputes whether the accident occurred. (Id.; Moving Br. 4, ECF No. 50-4).
In addition to the testimony from Nicole and Toni Willis, Plaintiff has produced the photographs2 of the water on the floor she took after she fell, and medical reports from the spine and pain center that state she slipped on water and fell on her back while shopping at Wal-Mart. (Saunders Dep. 205:3-15; Personal Injury Review Sheet, Ex. D, P-6, ECF No. 50-9; Visit Notes dated Apr. 22 & 24, 2015, Ex. D, P-7, P-8, ECF No. 50-9; Photographs, Ex. G, ECF No. 50-12, Photograph, Ex. 1, ECF No. 51-3). Defendant has not produced any witnesses to challenge the testimony of Plaintiff, Toni, or Nicole.
In support of its motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff does not allege what caused the bottles to break, how long the water was on the floor, or whether any Wal-Mart employee had actual or constructive notice or an opportunity to eliminate the hazard. (Id. ¶ 9). It also asserts that Plaintiff's photographs do not show displays of water bottles, water on the floor, or any distinguishing features that indicate they were taken at the store in question. (Id. ¶ 12). Further, it argues that if the puddle of water were the size described by Plaintiff, it would have been sufficiently open and obvious to relieve Defendant of the duty to warn. (Reply Br. 8-9, ECF No. 52).
A motion for summary judgment should be granted only if "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 factual dispute is 'genuine' if the 'evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., 951 F.3d 137, 144 (3d Cir. 2020), amended, 979 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). "A factual dispute is 'material' if it 'might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.'" Id.
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Romeo v. Harrah's Atl. City Propco, LLC, 168 F. Supp. 3d 726, 728 (D.N.J. 2016). Then, the nonmoving party must allege "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. "The Court must view the facts and evidence presented on the motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Moreover, summary judgment "is inappropriate when the evidence is susceptible of different interpretations or inferences by the trier of fact." Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 553 (1999).
In a suit for negligence, a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. V.C. by Costello v. Target Corp., 454 F. Supp. 3d 415, 243 (D.N.J. 2020) (citing Keith v. Truck Stops Corp. of Am., 909 F.2d 743, 745 (3d Cir. 1990)). "Failure to establish any one of these elements is grounds for summary judgment." Id.
A business owner owes a particular duty of care to its invitees:
Business owners owe to invitees a duty of reasonable or due care to provide a safe environment for doing that which is within the scope of the invitation. The duty of due care requires a business owner to discover and eliminate dangerous conditions, to maintain thepremises in safe condition, and to avoid creating conditions that would render the premises unsafe.
Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 818 A.2d 314, 316 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2003) (citations omitted).
In general, an invitee must prove that the business owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused her injuries. Id. "Constructive knowledge refers to notice that a particular condition existed for such a length of time as reasonably to have resulted in knowledge of the condition, had the owner . . . been reasonably diligent." Romeo, 168 F. Supp. 3d at 732 (quoting Kempf v. Target Corp., No. 06-1935, 2008 WL 305457, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2008)). "Whether a reasonable opportunity to discover a defect existed will depend on both the character and the duration of the defect." Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown, 471 A.2d 25, 30 (1984).
When analyzing constructive notice in slip and fall cases, courts have considered the characteristics of the substance that caused the fall and how long it was present. See Schmicker v. Target, No. CV 17-11628, 2020 WL 2487661, at *4 . "Although the evaluation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial