Larsen v. Menard, Inc.

Background

Roberta Larsen alleged that she tripped on a floor mat while exiting a Menards store in Elk River, Minnesota, on August 7, 2021. She hit her head and right knee, lost consciousness for an uncertain period, and later received treatment for a concussion, a broken arm, and a knee injury. She eventually had right-knee surgery.

Larsen sued Menard, Inc., the store owner, and ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC, the mat supplier. Her claims against ARAMARK were based on negligence and product defect. ARAMARK moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Evidence about the mat

Menards employees placed mats at the store’s entrance and exit when rain or snow created a moisture hazard. Employees decided when to place and remove the mats, and there was no placement or removal protocol. ARAMARK delivered clean mats and collected soiled mats on a weekly schedule. ARAMARK stated that mats were inspected before delivery and delivered clean and tightly rolled. Its representative generally delivered the mats to a janitor’s closet rather than placing them in the store.

A Menards employee testified that the mat Larsen encountered repeatedly puckered when carts crossed it and that puckering created a tripping hazard. The employee also testified that she had seen two or three other occasions when a person tripped on a puckered mat. Larsen saw the mat buckle after her fall and saw another customer trip and catch herself.

The opinion states, however, that no one at the Elk River store reported the puckering, the specific mat, or that type of mat as defective to ARAMARK. There also was no evidence that ARAMARK was contacted for a replacement mat outside its normal delivery schedule. A 2018 email from a Menard distribution center mentioned a different, unidentified rug, but the court found that email did not show that the mat involved in Larsen’s accident was defective or that ARAMARK had notice of a defect.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Minnesota substantive law. It treated Larsen’s claims as involving two theories: negligence based on a failure to inspect and product defect.

For the failure-to-inspect theory, Minnesota negligence law requires proof of a duty of care, breach of that duty, injury, and proximate causation. The court found no evidence that the mat was delivered by ARAMARK in a hazardous condition, that ARAMARK failed to inspect it, or that its inspections were unreasonable. The court therefore held that the record did not create a genuine fact dispute about breach or causation.

The court also rejected the product-defect theory. Under the Minnesota law described in the opinion, a strict-liability claim requires proof that the product was defectively and unreasonably dangerous, that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control, and that the defect proximately caused the injury. The court found no evidence establishing any of those required points. It noted that Minnesota treats negligence and strict product liability as functionally merged in this context.

The court observed that Larsen’s reasoning—that the mat must have had a hazardous defect because it buckled—resembled an argument based on res ipsa loquitur, a doctrine that can permit an inference of negligence from circumstances. But Larsen confirmed at oral argument that she was not asserting that doctrine. The court concluded that, without evidence of an ARAMARK breach or a defect attributable to ARAMARK, no reasonable jury could find that ARAMARK breached a duty to Larsen or caused her injuries.

Disposition

The court granted ARAMARK’s motion for summary judgment. It dismissed with prejudice Larsen’s claims against ARAMARK. The order does not state the disposition of Larsen’s claims against Menard, Inc.