Canavati v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Rania Canavati brought a single negligence claim against Costco Wholesale Corporation. On September 4, 2016, between approximately 1:30 and 1:33 p.m., Canavati slipped and fell on clear liquid while walking down an aisle at a Costco store in South San Francisco. A person who was with her took photographs of the location a few minutes later and recorded the time as 1:33 p.m. Canavati did not recall the exact location of the fall, but testified that it occurred toward the back of the store.

Costco employees regularly inspected the store for spills and other hazardous conditions. Costco’s inspection log showed inspections from 12:00 to 12:19 p.m. and again from 1:00 to 1:40 p.m. Employee Yeni Wardhani conducted the later inspection. Her inspection included looking for hazards and checking digital thermometers on refrigerators and freezers. Wardhani testified that her inspections generally took about 40 minutes and that she followed the same route.

The Motion and Legal Standard

Costco moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility at this stage.

Under California law, negligence requires proof of a legal duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. A store owner must use reasonable care to keep areas open to customers reasonably safe. To establish causation based on a dangerous condition, a plaintiff must show that the store had actual or constructive notice. Constructive notice means the condition existed long enough that the store reasonably should have discovered and corrected it.

Court’s Analysis

Canavati conceded that she had no evidence Costco actually knew about the liquid. The issue was therefore whether she had evidence from which a factfinder could conclude that Costco had constructive notice.

Wardhani estimated that she spent two to five minutes in the food court, five to ten minutes in the refrigerator and cooler section while checking temperatures, and completed the inspection by reviewing the food aisles. Using the longer estimates, and without adding travel time between areas, the court found it possible that Wardhani did not finish inspecting the area where Canavati fell until 1:35 p.m.—after the fall. Based on that evidence, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Costco did not inspect the area for more than an hour, from the completion of the noon inspection at 12:19 p.m. until the fall at about 1:30 p.m.

The court also noted that Wardhani was simultaneously checking and recording refrigerator and freezer temperatures. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that, even if she passed the area during the 1:00 p.m. inspection, she was not focused on looking for floor hazards. Costco relied on Wardhani’s later declaration stating that she believed she inspected the area at approximately 1:15 to 1:25 p.m. and would have cleaned any liquid she saw. Costco also challenged the usefulness of Wardhani’s deposition time estimates. The court held that these competing accounts highlighted factual disputes rather than resolving them.

Disposition

The court DENIED Costco’s motion for summary judgment. It did not make findings about when the inspection occurred or whether Costco was negligent. The court also directed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report by October 25, 2019, concerning private mediation or referral to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference. The court stated that the scheduled January 21, 2020 pretrial conference and February 10, 2020 trial dates remained in effect and that any alternative-dispute-resolution proceeding had to be completed by January 6, 2020.