Biernacki v. Target Corporation

Background

Joanne Biernacki sued Target Corporation for negligence and premises liability after a slip-and-fall incident at a Target store on March 12, 2016. Biernacki testified that, after her foot slid and she fell, she saw water on the floor near her. She did not know what caused the water or how long it had been there. A Target employee, Theresa Ruslender, testified that she saw Biernacki slip and later saw sanitary wipes near the general scene, but not in the area where Biernacki had been on the floor. Another Target employee, Megan Mendenhall, testified that the floor appeared clean and dry after the incident.

The opinion noted that the evidentiary record was not entirely clear. For example, the incident report discussed by the parties was not the report prepared by Ruslender, and the parties did not submit some referenced materials. The opinion also noted ambiguity about the size of the water spot.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The party opposing summary judgment must present meaningful supporting evidence, not merely rely on the allegations in the complaint or on the other party’s lack of evidence.

Under California negligence law, a store has a duty to use reasonable care to keep its premises reasonably safe. In a premises-liability case, the plaintiff must show that the store had actual notice or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Constructive notice means that the condition existed long enough, or was otherwise apparent enough, that the store reasonably should have known about it and had time to correct it.

Court’s analysis

Target argued that Biernacki’s testimony did not sufficiently show that Target’s negligence caused her injury and that she had no evidence Target had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Biernacki did not claim that Target had actual notice, so the court limited its analysis to constructive notice.

The court held that Biernacki had not presented affirmative evidence that Target knew, or should have known, about the water, sanitary wipes, or another dangerous condition before the fall. Biernacki relied primarily on Target’s lack of inspection logs, photographs, video, and other records. The court explained that this absence of evidence could not substitute for evidence supporting constructive notice. The court also stated that a fall alone does not permit an inference that the store was negligent.

Because Biernacki had not produced evidence supporting constructive notice, the court concluded that Target was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court therefore did not reach Target’s separate argument about causation.

Spoliation argument and disposition

Biernacki also argued that Target’s lack of records, photographs, and video constituted spoliation, meaning improper destruction or loss of evidence. The court declined to consider that argument because Biernacki cited no supporting facts or legal authority.

Judge Donna M. Ryu granted Target’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Target against Biernacki and close the case.