Levine v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Valerie Levine brought a personal-injury negligence lawsuit against Apple Inc. She alleged that she fell at an Apple Store on April 6, 2023, while receiving device support from Apple employee Leah Singleton. Levine testified that she saw Singleton’s shoes and socks move horizontally across her body but denied feeling contact with Singleton or any object before the fall. She also testified that she did not trip, lose her balance, slip, or feel dizzy.

Singleton recalled leading Levine toward a table and pulling out a chair. Singleton said that when she turned around, Levine was already falling and that she reached out to break Levine’s fall. There was no store video of the interaction. Levine suffered a fractured femur requiring surgery, rehabilitation, and continuing pain and limitations described in the opinion.

Levine filed the action in New York state court, alleging that Apple was liable for negligence through its employee. Apple removed the case to federal court and, after discovery, moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Legal standard

A negligence claim requires proof of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Apple sought summary judgment on breach and causation. The court granted the motion based on causation and therefore did not address whether there was evidence that Apple or its employee acted negligently.

Direct evidence of causation

The court found no direct evidence showing what caused Levine’s fall. Levine repeatedly said that she did not know what caused it. The court held that the differing accounts from Apple employees did not replace Levine’s lack of evidence about the cause. Because Levine could not identify a specific cause, the evidence did not create a genuine factual dispute for a jury on causation.

Circumstantial evidence of causation

The court also considered whether the cause could reasonably be inferred from indirect evidence. Levine argued that Singleton may have tripped over her, based partly on Levine’s observation of Singleton’s shoes and socks moving across her body. The court found that this was speculation rather than sufficient evidence. Levine did not testify that she saw Singleton trip, did not describe how Singleton’s conduct caused the fall, and denied seeing or feeling contact before falling.

Levine also argued that Singleton must have caused the injury because Singleton was the only person nearby. The court found that the record showed several other people were in the area. Because Levine’s evidence did not make other possible causes sufficiently unlikely, the court held that a jury could not determine causation without speculation. The court likewise rejected Levine’s reliance on the rule sometimes allowing an accident’s circumstances to support an inference of negligence, because she could not rule out other causes.

Disposition

The court held that Apple had shown the absence of a genuine dispute about causation and that Levine had not identified direct or circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Apple’s conduct caused her injury. The court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment as to Levine’s negligence-liability claim, directed entry of judgment for Apple, and directed the Clerk to terminate the case. The court did not decide Apple’s arguments about breach.