Linda Masterpole v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-06952
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Masterpole v. Costco, Judge Illston denied Costco’s summary-judgment motion, finding disputed facts about whether it knew about water that caused Masterpole’s fall.
Linda Masterpole and Costco Wholesale Corporation; Costco’s motion was denied, so the court did not grant judgment to Costco on Masterpole’s negligence and premises-liability claims.
What happened
Linda Masterpole sued Costco Wholesale Corporation for negligence and premises liability after she slipped inside a Costco warehouse. She said she fell in a puddle of water on a rainy day, although she did not know how long the water had been there or whether Costco employees knew about it.
Costco argued that it could not be held responsible because employees had swept or inspected the area shortly before the fall. The court found that a jury could instead decide that customers continued tracking rainwater onto the concrete floor and that the inspection may not have been an active look for hazards.
The court denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment because disputed facts could support a finding that Costco had enough notice of the water to address it, Judge Susan Illston ruled.
The detailed version
- Linda Masterpole v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · No. 3:21-cv-06952
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Linda Masterpole asserted negligence and premises-liability claims against Costco Wholesale Corporation after she fell inside a Costco warehouse on February 16, 2019. Masterpole testified that she slipped in a puddle of water, did not see the water before falling, and did not know its source or exactly how long it had been on the floor. She estimated that the water was about one inch deep and roughly the size of a large pizza.
It was raining throughout the day, and Costco’s policy required hourly floor walks and safety inspections. When it rained, Costco placed a mat near the entrance and conducted extra floor sweeps. Surveillance video showed an employee sweeping the area about 30 minutes before Masterpole fell, but the employee did not sweep the apparently shiny floor area next to a piece of debris. The video also showed a later employee inspection during which the employee walked through the area without clearly looking down at the floor. The employee did not report a hazard there.
Legal standard
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 may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility at this stage; it must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.
Under the legal principles applied by the court, Costco owed customers a duty to use reasonable care to keep its premises reasonably safe. For Masterpole to prevail, she had to show that Costco owed her that duty, breached it, caused her injury, and that she suffered damages. She also had to show that Costco had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Constructive notice means that the condition existed long enough that a reasonably careful property owner should have discovered it.
Court’s analysis
Costco argued that Masterpole could not prove notice as a matter of law because the area had been inspected at least 30 minutes before her fall. The court rejected the argument that a fixed inspection interval automatically defeats constructive notice. It explained that there is no set amount of time that is always reasonable between inspections and that whether a condition existed long enough to be discovered is ordinarily a question for the jury.
The court concluded that Masterpole had presented enough evidence to create a factual dispute about whether Costco had constructive notice of the water in time to act. Viewing the video in Masterpole’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that customers continued tracking rainwater from the entrance mat onto the concrete floor. The court also found that a jury could conclude that the later inspection was not an active investigation of the area because the video did not clearly show the employee looking at the ground and the court had no testimony from that employee about how the inspection was conducted.
Disposition
The court denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling did not resolve the negligence and premises-liability claims; it determined that Masterpole had presented sufficient evidence for those claims to proceed beyond Costco’s motion.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.