Almodovar v. Wal-Mart Stores East

Background

Jarline Almodovar brought a negligence and premises-liability action against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Walmart, Inc., and Walmart Supercenter Store #1959. She alleged that she suffered personal injuries after slipping and falling on water while shopping in the defendants’ store in Middletown, New York, on September 26, 2021. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence permits a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party.

Almodovar and her husband, Exequiel Ochoa, had shopped in the store for about 15 minutes before going toward the back to get milk. Almodovar slipped and fell. She observed water on the floor afterward, but she had not seen it before the accident. Ochoa also did not see anything on the floor before the fall. Neither knew how the water got there or how long it had been present. Ochoa testified that the water was clear and had no track marks or footprints.

Applicable law

Because the case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and the alleged accident occurred in New York, the court applied New York law to the underlying premises-liability claim. A plaintiff generally must show a dangerous condition, a defendant’s duty and breach, and an injury caused by the breach. In a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it.

Actual notice means that the defendant was aware of the particular condition before the accident. Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough for the defendant to discover and correct it. The court also considered Almodovar’s theory that Wal-Mart failed to conduct reasonable inspections.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Almodovar had not presented evidence that Wal-Mart created the water condition. Ochoa at one point suggested that the water appeared to come from a jug near the store’s self-service water-filling station, but he later testified that he did not know how the water got on the floor. That testimony did not establish the water’s source, much less an intentional act by Wal-Mart or one of its employees. The court also rejected the argument that merely having a self-service water station or selling merchandise could establish that Wal-Mart created the hazard.

The court separately held that there was no evidence of actual notice. The record did not show that a Wal-Mart employee saw the water before Almodovar fell or that Wal-Mart received a complaint about it before the accident.

The court also found no evidence supporting constructive notice. Neither Almodovar nor Ochoa saw the water before the fall, and Almodovar identified no other person who did. The fact that they saw the water after the accident did not show that it had been visible beforehand. Although the accident occurred near a door that they believed employees used, the record did not establish how often employees used the door or traveled through the area. The court also found no footprints, cart tracks, or other evidence indicating how long the water had been present. The size of the puddle did not establish its duration.

Finally, the court rejected the failure-to-inspect theory. Almodovar provided no evidence of a store policy requiring inspections at particular intervals, that Wal-Mart failed to conduct a required inspection, or that a reasonable inspection would have discovered the water in time to prevent the accident. The court also noted that there was no evidence that the water was visible or had been present long enough to be discovered through an inspection.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the case. Judge Andrew E. Krause signed the order on September 26, 2025.