Russo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Andrea Russo sued Costco Wholesale Corporation for injuries she said resulted from slipping and falling at Costco’s location at 20 Stew Leonard Drive in Yonkers, New York, on January 16, 2022. Costco removed the case from New York state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The parties consented to proceedings before a magistrate judge. Costco moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule before trial that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial.

Russo testified that, after she bought a hotdog, she tried to move her loaded shopping cart. The cart initially would not move. After she pulled it toward herself and tried again to push it forward, the cart suddenly moved rapidly forward and she fell. Russo did not see the object before her fall. Afterward, she saw a manager move a round, beige plastic object and told the manager that it was what she slipped on. The parties agreed that a plastic cup lid was on the floor, but they disagreed about whether Russo’s cart contacted it and whether it caused the fall.

Costco’s Arguments

Costco argued that Russo could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation. Costco also argued that surveillance video conclusively showed that neither Russo nor her cart touched the cup lid or any liquid, defeating the causation element of Russo’s negligence claim.

Russo argued that she sufficiently identified the cup lid as the cause of her fall through her testimony and the surrounding circumstances. She also argued that the video showed the cart’s right rear wheel resting on or contacting the lid, causing an obstruction before she pulled the cart backward, pushed it forward, and fell.

Court’s Analysis

Under New York negligence law, Russo had to show a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury caused by the breach. The parties did not dispute in this motion whether Costco owed Russo a duty or breached it. The dispute concerned whether Russo had offered enough evidence that the alleged condition caused her fall.

The court explained that a plaintiff does not need direct personal knowledge of the precise cause of a fall to survive summary judgment. Circumstantial evidence may be enough if the facts and conditions reasonably support an inference of negligence and causation. The court found that Russo’s testimony about the plastic object, her statement to the Costco manager, and the surveillance video provided such evidence.

The court independently reviewed the video and concluded that portions of it appeared to show Russo pushing the cart over a circular object, with the object becoming partly elevated under the wheel. The court also noted that the parties offered competing interpretations of what the video showed. A reasonable jury could accept Russo’s interpretation that the cart contacted the lid and that the lid obstructed the cart, while Costco urged a different interpretation.

Because the court had to resolve ambiguities and draw reasonable factual inferences for Russo at the summary-judgment stage, it could not decide which interpretation was correct. Assessing credibility and choosing between competing versions of events are matters for a jury when reasonable factfinders could reach different conclusions.

Disposition

Judge Victoria Reznik denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment. The court did not determine that Costco was negligent or that the cup lid caused Russo’s injuries. It ruled that Russo had presented enough evidence for those questions to proceed to a jury. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, and the court stated that it would issue a separate scheduling order for an initial pretrial conference.