Stover v. Target Corporation

Background

Virginia Stover, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Target Corporation for negligence. The case was originally filed in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, and Target removed it to federal court. The opinion states that federal jurisdiction was based on the parties’ diversity of citizenship.

On December 15, 2021, Stover was waiting in line at a Target store at 40 West 225th Street in the Bronx. After the cashiers switched positions, an unidentified male customer moved in front of Stover. Stover moved back in front of him. As she began placing items on the checkout belt, the man twice pushed his shopping cart into her body. She testified that the incident happened without warning, lasted less than ten seconds, and occurred while she was attempting to retrieve items she said had fallen from her cart. Target’s security video showed two pushes about four seconds apart, but did not show items falling or Stover bending down.

Stover claimed that she suffered occasional left-side pain, lower-back pain, high blood pressure, and emotional harm. She sought one million dollars in damages. She argued that Target should have anticipated the possibility of an altercation, that the cashier switch caused it, and that Target employees failed to intervene or adequately respond afterward.

Legal standard

Target moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court noted that it must give special consideration to a person representing herself, but that this does not eliminate the requirement to produce evidence sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires proof that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the plaintiff’s injury. Landowners may have a duty to control third parties on their property when they have an opportunity to do so and are reasonably aware that control is needed. But a public establishment generally has no duty to protect against assaults that are unforeseeable and unexpected.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the central issue was whether Target owed Stover a duty to prevent this altercation. It concluded that the event was not foreseeable. Stover described it as happening very quickly and without warning, and the security footage was consistent with an unprovoked incident lasting only seconds. Thus, Target employees had no meaningful opportunity to control the customer in a way that would have prevented the event.

The court also found that Stover had not identified prior incidents that would have put Target on notice of a similar danger. She did not provide evidence that a similar altercation had previously occurred at that Target location, and she had no information showing that the unidentified customer had been involved in prior altercations there. The robberies and car crash she identified involved conduct that was not substantially similar to the shopping-cart incident. The court therefore concluded that Target’s general awareness of unrelated criminal activity was insufficient to establish foreseeability.

The court rejected Stover’s arguments that Target failed to show concern, report the incident, or gather evidence afterward. The record showed that Target provided her with the security footage and that several Target employees and an NYPD officer were next to her immediately after the incident. The court also found no evidence that the footage had been altered or doctored. Any differences between the footage and Stover’s testimony were minor and did not create a genuine dispute about whether the incident occurred quickly and without warning.

Disposition

The court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action with prejudice, close the motion, and close the case.