Gfroerer v. Menard, Inc.

Background

Sherryl Gfroerer and Jon Gfroerer sued Menard, Inc. Sherryl alleged that a train of shopping carts pushed by Menard employee A.D. struck her from behind at Menard’s Elk River, Minnesota, store on April 11, 2015. Jon asserted a loss-of-consortium claim. Menard, Inc. removed the case from state court to federal court and moved for summary judgment on both claims.

The opinion states that A.D. was a minor when the incident occurred, so the court referred to him by his initials. The parties agreed that the employee shown entering the store with carts was likely A.D., and the court assumed for purposes of the motion that it was A.D. There was no interior surveillance video covering the area where customers retrieved carts.

Sherryl testified that after she pulled a cart from the cart corral and placed her purse in its child seat, she began pushing the cart into the store with her back toward the corral. She said a train of carts struck her ankle and back and that her own cart kept her from falling. Jon testified that he saw a Menard employee in a yellow vest apologize after the collision. An incident report stated that the end of the cart line was pushed into a guest, hitting her back and ankle. Menard’s claims administrator paid $5,000 for Sherryl’s medical bills. A physician who examined her at Menard’s request later opined that she had suffered a permanent injury or disability directly resulting from the incident.

Parties’ Arguments

Menard, Inc. argued that the security footage showed A.D. moving slowly and in control of the carts. It also argued that because A.D. did not request or receive assistance, the evidence showed that he was moving the carts safely. Menard contended that the plaintiffs had not identified evidence showing a breach of the duty of reasonable care.

The plaintiffs argued that whether A.D. violated his duty of care was for a fact finder, such as a jury, to decide. They relied on the collision, the video, the incident report, and deposition testimony as evidence from which a fact finder could conclude that A.D. failed to use reasonable care.

Legal Standard

Under Minnesota law, negligence requires proof that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, and caused an actual injury. The summary-judgment question here focused on breach. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A factual dispute is genuine when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to rule for the opposing party.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that factual disputes prevented summary judgment. Menard acknowledged that it owed customers a duty of care. Testimony described reasonable cart-pushing practices, including limiting the number of carts, moving slowly enough to maintain control, requesting assistance when necessary, watching the path, and avoiding customers. The testimony also indicated that employees should wait if a guest was in the carts’ path and should move more slowly near the cart corral because of the store’s layout and slick floors.

The court found sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to determine that A.D.’s train of carts hit Sherryl and caused her injuries. The video was consistent with the plaintiffs’ account, but it did not definitively show that A.D. was walking slowly, maintaining control, or checking whether customers were near the guest end of the cart corral. A jury could therefore infer that A.D. was moving too quickly or did not sufficiently control the carts.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Menard, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED. The opinion did not enter judgment for either side on the negligence or loss-of-consortium claims.