Jacquez v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Rafaela Jacquez entered a Costco store in Richmond, California, on December 21, 2020. In the paper-products aisle, she saw shrink-wrap on the floor and walked over it to retrieve an item from a shelf. She became tangled in the shrink-wrap and fell. She later partially completed an incident report stating that the accident occurred at 10:20 a.m.

Costco moved for summary judgment on Jacquez’s claims for premises liability and negligence. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when no genuine dispute exists 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, without weighing evidence or deciding witness credibility.

Parties’ Arguments

Costco argued that Jacquez had not provided evidence that Costco had actual or constructive notice of the shrink-wrap. Constructive notice means that the condition existed long enough, or under circumstances sufficient, that the property owner should have discovered and corrected it. Costco also argued that its records showed an inspection of the area at approximately 9:45 a.m., before Jacquez’s fall, and that the shrink-wrap presented an open and obvious danger that eliminated potential liability regardless of notice.

Jacquez argued that factual disputes existed about whether Costco had constructive notice and whether the shrink-wrap was open and obvious.

Court’s Analysis

Under California law, negligence requires proof of a legal duty, breach, causation, and damages. The elements of premises liability based on negligence are the same. A store owner owes customers a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe but is not an insurer of their safety.

The court explained that a premises-liability plaintiff may show constructive notice by establishing that a hazardous condition existed long enough for the owner to discover and correct it. The length of time is generally a fact question for the jury, and the circumstances of each accident matter. Some courts have used an inspection gap of about 30 minutes as a basis for sending notice questions to a jury.

Costco’s inspection log showed that employee Albert Tatmon conducted a store inspection from 9:35 a.m. to 9:59 a.m. Tatmon did not remember this particular inspection, but based on his usual practice estimated that he inspected the accident area at about 9:45 a.m., approximately 35 minutes before Jacquez fell. The court held that Jacquez was entitled to question Tatmon and allow the jury to assess his credibility. Even accepting Tatmon’s estimate, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the area had gone uninspected long enough to support an inference of constructive notice.

The court also rejected Costco’s argument that the shrink-wrap was necessarily open and obvious as a matter of law. The record did not establish that the shrink-wrap in the aisle presented an obvious danger in this situation. Jacquez testified that she had no previous experience walking on shrink-wrap that would have informed her about the risk of slipping on it. Whether a reasonable person would have recognized the danger was a fact question for the jury.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. identified at least two material factual disputes: whether the inspection evidence supported constructive notice and whether the danger posed by the shrink-wrap was open and obvious. The Court DENIED Costco Wholesale Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not make factual findings or express a view about which side would be more persuasive at trial.