Cooper v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Walmart

Background

Laura Cooper sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Walmart and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP over injuries she allegedly suffered when she fell at a Walmart store in Middletown, New York, on May 19, 2022. The defendants removed the case from New York state court based on diversity jurisdiction. They then moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, which allows judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result.

Cooper fell near the self-checkout area. She said she slipped on a puddle of clear liquid. Surveillance video showed that another customer caused the spill at 12:57:26 p.m., and that Cooper fell at 1:03:07 p.m., five minutes and forty-one seconds later. A self-checkout employee cleaned the puddle at about 1:04 p.m. Cooper did not see anything on the floor before she fell and did not know how long the liquid had been there. The parties disputed some details, including whether people appeared to avoid the puddle, but the court viewed the evidence in Cooper’s favor when considering summary judgment.

Legal Standard

New York law governed the substance of Cooper’s slip-and-fall claim, while federal law governed the summary-judgment procedure. To prove negligence based on a dangerous condition on property, Cooper had to show that the defendants owed her a duty, breached that duty, and caused her injury. For the breach element, she had to provide evidence that the defendants created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.

Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough before the accident for employees to discover and correct it. Cooper, as the party who would bear the burden of proof at trial, had to identify specific evidence creating a genuine dispute for trial rather than rely on general allegations.

Court’s Analysis

Dangerous condition. The court found it undisputed that a dangerous condition existed because there was liquid on the floor before Cooper fell.

Creation of the spill. The court found that another customer, not Walmart, created the spill. Cooper conceded that the surveillance video showed this. Therefore, Cooper did not create a genuine factual dispute about whether Walmart caused the dangerous condition.

Actual notice. The court found that Walmart did not have actual notice. Cooper did not claim that an employee saw the liquid or that anyone reported it to Walmart before the fall, and she conceded there was no evidence of actual notice.

Constructive notice. The court held that Cooper had not shown either required part of constructive notice. First, she did not show that the clear liquid was visible and apparent before the fall. She did not see it beforehand, and seeing it after the accident did not establish that it was visible before the accident. The court reviewed the video and found that it showed a glistening mark but did not establish that customers or employees could see the spill. The video also showed people walking through the area without appearing to notice or avoid the liquid.

Second, the court held that the spill had not been on the floor long enough to give Walmart constructive notice. The five-minute-and-forty-one-second interval was legally insufficient on the facts presented to allow Walmart to discover and remedy the condition. The court explained that the video’s precise timing did not itself establish constructive notice.

Failure to inspect. Cooper argued that Walmart’s alleged failure to conduct reasonable inspections made notice unnecessary or independently supported liability. The court rejected that theory. Cooper did not provide evidence of a policy requiring inspections at particular intervals, and the store manager testified that there was no formal inspection schedule. Cooper also did not show that a reasonable inspection would have found and corrected the spill before her fall. The court further stated that employees’ proximity to the spill, by itself, was not enough to establish constructive notice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Judge Judith C. McCarthy directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants, terminate the pending motion, and close the case.