Flores v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

Background

Teresa Flores asserted one negligence claim against each of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls CMG. She alleged that she slipped and fell at a CMG restaurant on June 30, 2021, injuring her right arm. The original state-court complaint referred to a second defendant as “Wakefern,” but the parties confirmed that this was a typographical error and that the second negligence claim was against Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC.

Flores testified that she smelled cleaning products when she entered the restaurant and saw a young male employee with a towel and bucket cleaning. After ordering food, she sat on a brown leather stool. During or after sitting, her left hand slipped, causing her to fall. When she tried to get up, she felt that the stool was slippery. She described the substance as colorless, shiny, and not sticky. She did not know what specifically caused the stool to be slippery or how long the condition had existed.

CMG moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in its favor without a trial. Under that procedure, the court must deny the motion if evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide an important disputed fact for the opposing party.

Legal Analysis

The court applied New York negligence law. The parties did not dispute that CMG had a duty to maintain safe premises or that Flores’s injuries were caused by her slipping. The issue was whether there was a trial-worthy dispute about whether CMG breached that duty.

For a slip-and-fall claim, Flores had to provide evidence of a dangerous or defective condition and show either that CMG created the condition or knew, or should have known, about it. The court found that her descriptions of the stool as slippery, shiny, and covered with a colorless substance were enough to create a factual dispute about whether a dangerous condition existed.

The court also found enough evidence to create a factual dispute about whether CMG created the condition. Flores smelled cleaning products, saw a CMG employee cleaning with a towel and bucket, and fell on a stool with a clear, slippery substance. Together, those facts supported a reasonable inference that a CMG employee left cleaning solution on the stool. The court said that Flores did not need to know the substance’s precise identity or how long it had been there to pursue this theory that CMG created the condition.

The court rejected CMG’s arguments that Flores’s evidence was merely speculative and that differences in her descriptions of when she slipped required judgment for CMG. Whether Flores’s account was credible and which reasonable inference should be accepted were questions for a jury, not the court at the summary-judgment stage.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court denied CMG’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not decide whether CMG was ultimately negligent or whether Flores would prevail. The Clerk was directed to close the motion, and the parties were directed to file a joint status letter addressing possible jury-trial dates from May through September 2025 and whether they wanted mediation or a settlement conference.