Singh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Jayashree Singh sued Costco Wholesale Corporation in California state court, alleging negligence and premises liability after she slipped and fell on liquid near the indoor food court of a Costco store. Costco removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Both parties moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Singh sought partial summary judgment on Costco’s liability, while Costco sought summary judgment in its favor.

The central issue was whether Costco had constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Constructive notice means that the condition existed long enough, or was apparent enough, that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. Singh did not meaningfully argue that Costco had actual knowledge of the spill.

Evidence and Legal Analysis

The surveillance video showed Costco employee Debra Grant moving near the food-court tables about four minutes before Singh fell. It also showed Front-End Manager Jorge Molina walking across the area about 79 seconds before the fall. Costco argued that these events were inspections occurring shortly before the accident. Molina stated that he did not see a spilled drink, liquid hazard, or other dangerous condition while walking in the video.

Singh presented evidence challenging whether either employee conducted a reasonable safety inspection. Costco’s manual instructed floorwalkers to check areas for unsafe conditions, including floor slip and trip hazards. Jonathan Eric von Delden testified that he did not see anyone conducting a floor-walk safety inspection in the relevant video. Molina likewise testified that he did not see anyone conducting a daily floorwalk during the period when Grant purportedly inspected the area. Molina also testified that he did not look down at the floor during his walk. Costco did not submit direct testimony from Grant about her alleged inspection, and Molina did not state that he was conducting an inspection when he appeared in the video.

The court also noted that the spill’s location was partly obstructed by umbrellas in the video, and neither party presented evidence definitively establishing how long the spill had been on the floor. The court rejected Costco’s reliance on cases involving inspections less than 30 minutes before an accident because, unlike those cases, Singh offered affirmative evidence disputing whether a reasonable inspection occurred. Under California premises-liability law, whether a dangerous condition existed long enough to be discovered is generally a question for the jury, and the cases do not impose exact time limits.

Evidentiary Objections

The court overruled the parties’ authentication and foundation objections to the surveillance video and Costco’s Member Services Manual because the evidence could be presented in admissible form at trial. The court also overruled Singh’s hearsay objection to the video because it contained no oral or written assertions, and Singh had not shown that the nonverbal conduct was intended as an assertion.

Ruling

The court held that the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether a Costco employee reasonably inspected the area for hazards. Costco’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. Singh’s partial motion for summary judgment was also DENIED because her evidence established a triable factual dispute, preventing her from showing that no such dispute existed.