Pett v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Kristin Pett brought a negligence action against Costco Wholesale Corporation after slipping and falling at Costco’s store in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on May 22, 2016. She fractured her right ankle and reported permanent injuries, medical expenses, pain, missed work, and lost activities. Costco removed the case from Hennepin County to federal court and moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Pett was carrying two plants when she walked from a side aisle into a main aisle and slipped on a puddle of liquid. She did not know where the liquid came from or how long it had been on the floor. A photograph taken shortly afterward appeared to show a small puddle and a smear, and no cone or other warning sign was near it.

Costco’s procedures and the disputed evidence

Costco trained employees to identify and address unsafe conditions. Employees were required to conduct hourly floor inspections and either correct a hazard or mark it while obtaining help. Costco also used warning signs or cones near plant racks that had recently been watered. On the morning of Pett’s fall, an employee conducted an inspection from approximately 11:02 a.m. to 11:48 a.m. and did not report seeing liquid near the fall location. The inspection checklist was signed by the on-duty manager.

Costco representatives stated that the geraniums on the nearby rack were never watered in the store, while Pett said the plants she picked up felt wet from being watered. Pett’s parents reported seeing water on the floor at times near watered plants at the store. The opinion also noted that May 22 was a busy sample day, when employees served food and drinks throughout the store, creating additional opportunities for spills.

Legal standard and analysis

Under Minnesota law, a business must keep its premises reasonably safe for customers, but it is not automatically responsible for every accident. When the business did not create the dangerous condition, the injured person generally must show that the business had actual knowledge of it or that the condition existed long enough that the business should have discovered it. This latter form of notice is called constructive notice. A plaintiff may use circumstantial evidence—indirect evidence from surrounding facts—to defeat summary judgment.

Pett did not claim that Costco had actual notice, and the court found no evidence that a Costco employee caused the puddle. The issue was therefore whether the evidence could support a finding that Costco had constructive notice or was generally careless in maintaining its floors. Viewing the evidence in Pett’s favor, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the store’s conditions created enough risk that Costco should have known of the danger and taken additional steps to keep the floor dry.

The court described the case as very close but found a genuine dispute over whether Costco used the appropriate level of vigilance in the area where Pett fell. Because that factual dispute could affect whether Costco breached its duty of care, the court denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment.

Disposition

The court ordered that Costco’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Docket No. 18, is DENIED.