Stengel v. Casey's Retail Co.
| Decision Date | 06 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | A22-0970 |
| Parties | Gene Stengel, Appellant, v. Casey's Retail Company d/b/a Casey's General Stores, Inc., Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Yellow Medicine County District Court File No. 87-CV-21-209
Jennifer E. Olson, TSR Injury Law, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)
Inga K. Kingland, James M. Susag, Nic S. Puechner, Larkin Hoffman Daly &Lindgren Ltd., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Taylor Brandt Cunningham, Conlin Law Firm, LLC, Minneapolis Minnesota (for amicus curiae Minnesota Association for Justice)
Considered and decided by Reilly Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of his negligence claim against respondent store owner, arguing that the district court erred by determining that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition that caused appellant to slip and fall outside respondent's store. Because we agree with appellant that there is a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment, we reverse and remand.
The following facts are either undisputed or based on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to appellant Gene Stengel.[1]
On April 15, 2018, Stengel was injured after slipping and falling on ice outside a store owned by respondent Casey's Retail Company, doing business as Casey's General Stores Inc. (Casey's), in Granite Falls. The day before Stengel's fall, a spring blizzard left about 15 inches of heavy snow on the ground.
Casey's contracted with Soine Construction Inc. to plow the parking lot and shovel the sidewalk at the Casey's store in Granite Falls. Soine plowed the parking lot three times on April 14 and once on the morning of April 15. Soine also shoveled the sidewalk on the morning of April 15. The lot had already been plowed and the sidewalk shoveled by the time that Casey's cashier arrived for her early morning shift on April 15. Soine did not put down any salt or sand after plowing and shoveling.
At approximately 6:50 a.m., Stengel and his son stopped at Casey's store. Stengel operates his own commercial snow removal business. He and his son had been out plowing snow at several locations in the Granite Falls area prior to stopping at Casey's for a break.
Stengel pulled his truck up to the sidewalk in front of the store entrance. He parked and went into the store. When getting out of his truck, he did not notice that the parking lot was icy or slippery. He did see other vehicles parked in the parking lot. After spending approximately 11 minutes inside, Stengel walked back out of the store. As he stepped off the sidewalk into the parking lot, Stengel slipped and fell, seriously injuring his left knee and quadricep.
After the accident, Stengel made several statements about the weather-related conditions that contributed to his fall. In deposition testimony, Stengel stated that "[t]he conditions that I walked in on ultimately were not the conditions that I walked out into." He also testified that he took a different path coming out of the store than he had taken going into the store, and that the surface of the parking lot was "solid ice" where he fell. He noted the general conditions on the roads that day, as informed by his snow-removal expertise, explaining that "[t]he conditions underneath of the tires made the snow turn to ice." This testimony echoed his statement to an insurance investigator that the snow was "an extremely liquidy slushy type of snow that, once it's removed, freezes right to the parking lot instantly." In other words, "[o]nce [the snow] had been plowed, it was starting to refreeze." Stengel also told the investigator that when he first got out of his truck, the snow
The record also contains detailed statements by Casey's employees. The assistant manager, who was working in the store office when Stengel fell, told the insurance investigator that she was aware that the parking lot had been plowed that morning. She was not sure exactly when it was plowed, but she believed that it was "within that half hour" before Stengel fell. She also stated that the area where Stengel fell "was snow covered but it was plowed snow covered." She noted that the snow removal company had not put any sand or salt down and that none of the employees "had gotten time to go outside to sand," though they had access to a pail of sand by the door. The assistant store manager further explained in deposition testimony that the snow removal company was not permitted by Casey's to use any deicing salt on the parking lot and sidewalks because they were newly built.
The cashier who was working when Stengel fell stated in deposition testimony that she arrived at the store on the day of the accident before her shift started at 6:00 a.m. She testified that there was snow on the Casey's sidewalk and parking lot but that the parking lot had already been plowed by the time she arrived at work that day. She acknowledged that a snowplow is "not able to get all of the snow or ice out just from plowing" and that "sometimes after a plow comes and plows the snow in a parking lot like Casey's, it can actually compact some of the snow onto the parking lot" and make it more slippery. She also acknowledged that snow can be "a slipping hazard for customers" and that the area where Stengel fell was heavily trafficked by customers. She speculated that "there might have been slippery spots" on the sidewalk and in the parking lot given the weather conditions, but she stated that she did not know for sure.
Stengel commenced this action against Casey's, alleging negligence. He asserted that Casey's had a duty to keep the area outside the store reasonably safe and that Casey's had breached that duty by failing to inspect and maintain the area, keep the area in a state of reasonable repair and fit for its intended use, and warn of "a dangerous trap."
Casey's moved for summary judgment. Stengel opposed the motion. Following a motion hearing, the district court granted the motion and dismissed Stengel's complaint. The district court determined that summary judgment was appropriate because Stengel had "not produced any evidence from which a jury could reasonably find" that Casey's had actual or constructive knowledge of the icy condition of its parking lot.
Stengel appeals.
We review summary-judgment decisions de novo. City of Waconia v. Dock, 961 N.W.2d 220, 229 (Minn. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01; Hagen v. Steven Scott Mgmt., Inc., 963 N.W.2d 164 172 (Minn. 2021). "A genuine issue of material fact exists when there is sufficient evidence regarding an essential element to permit reasonable persons to draw different conclusions." St. Paul Park Refin. Co. v. Domeier, 950 N.W.2d 547, 549 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted). When reviewing a summary-judgment decision, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all doubts and factual inferences against the moving part[y]." Henson, 922 N.W.2d at 190 (quotation omitted). We are mindful that summary judgment is a "blunt instrument" and "[i]t should not be granted when reasonable persons could draw different conclusions from the evidence presented." Staub v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, 964 N.W.2d 613, 620 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted).
Stengel challenges the district court's summary-judgment dismissal of his negligence claim. "The basic elements of a negligence claim are: (1) existence of a duty of care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) injury." Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn. 2007). A district court may grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant on a negligence claim "when the record reflects a complete lack of proof" on any element. Senogles v. Carlson, 902 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted).
The district court granted Casey's summary-judgment motion after determining that Stengel offered no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find the first element of his negligence claim: existence of a duty of care. "Generally, a defendant's duty to a plaintiff is a threshold question because in the absence of a legal duty, the negligence claim fails." Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). "A property owner has a duty to use reasonable care to prevent persons from being injured by conditions on the property that represent foreseeable risk of injury." Rinn v. Minn. State Agric. Soc'y, 611 N.W.2d 361, 364 (Minn.App. 2000). But this duty does not require property owners to be "insurers of safety." Id. at 365. "Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a [property owner] or his or her employees, a negligence theory of recovery is appropriate only where the [property owner] had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition." Id.
A plaintiff may establish a defendant's constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition "through evidence that the condition was present for such a period of time so as to constitute constructive notice of the hazard." Id. "But speculation as to who caused the dangerous condition, or how long it existed, warrants judgment for the [property owner]." Id. And where neither a defendant nor his or her employees have caused the dangerous condition,...
To continue reading
Request your trial