Pimentel v. Target Corporation

Background

Heriberto Pimentel sued Target Corporation, Target Brands, Target, and Target Stores, Inc., collectively referred to in the opinion as “Target,” for negligence under New York law. He alleged that he was injured after slipping and falling on water while shopping at a Target store in the Bronx on May 20, 2022. Kingsbridge Associates was also named as a defendant, but the parties stipulated to its dismissal shortly after the case began.

Pimentel and his wife did not see anything on the floor before he fell. They did not know the source of the water or how long it had been on the floor. During discovery, Target produced video showing the aisle for 38 minutes before the fall and 23 minutes afterward. The video showed customers and Target employees passing through the area. Target’s evidence included testimony that a formal safety walk occurred fewer than two minutes before Pimentel fell and that employees were expected to stop and report any liquid on the floor.

Motion and Legal Standard

Target moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Target argued that Pimentel had no evidence that it breached its duty to maintain the store in a safe condition.

Under New York negligence law, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, and caused an injury. Target conceded that it owed Pimentel a duty to maintain the premises safely but disputed that it breached that duty. In a slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff may show breach by proving that the defendant created the dangerous condition, had actual notice of it, or had constructive notice. Constructive notice means the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough for the defendant to discover and correct it.

Court’s Analysis

The court found no evidence that Target created the water. Pimentel did not know how the water reached the floor, and the record contained no evidence identifying an affirmative act by Target that caused the condition. The court said speculation about how Target might have created the hazard was insufficient to avoid summary judgment.

The court also found no evidence that Target had actual notice. Nothing in the record showed that Target, its employees, or the customers visible in the video knew about the water before Pimentel fell.

The court further found no evidence supporting constructive notice. The water was not visible in the video, and numerous people—including at least 15 people in the two minutes before the fall—passed through the aisle without noticing it. Neither Pimentel nor his wife saw the water beforehand. Pimentel also testified that the water was very clear and had no black marks, discoloration, footprints, or other features indicating how long it had been there. In addition, a Target security specialist walked through the aisle fewer than two minutes before the incident without reacting to a problem.

The court noted that Pimentel raised a possible issue about whether Target had produced the entire video, but he did so in his opposition memorandum rather than through a discovery motion. The court stated that fact discovery had already closed and that Pimentel had not moved to compel production before the deadline.

Disposition

The court concluded that Pimentel had produced no evidence that Target created the water, had actual notice of it, or had constructive notice of it. Because no reasonable jury could find that Target breached its duty of care, Judge Sidney H. Stein granted Target’s motion for summary judgment.