Cambria v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Background

Antoinette Cambria brought a negligence claim against Costco Wholesale Corporation after falling outside a Costco warehouse. The case was removed from New York State Supreme Court to the Southern District of New York. Costco moved for summary judgment.

Cambria testified that, while she waited near the curb outside the store, she saw a Costco employee pushing six or seven shopping carts toward her. She said the carts were moving from side to side and that she moved two steps to her right because it appeared the employee might hit her. She then felt a jolt from her shopping cart, which moved forward and to the right, causing her to fall. She did not see the employee’s cart touch hers, but she believed the side of that cart struck her cart’s handle. Her husband later observed six or seven carts still touching her cart.

The day was windy. Medical records and an emergency medical report stated that the wind caused or contributed to Cambria’s fall, but Cambria denied making those statements and later said it was possible she had made them. Costco argued that Cambria could not identify the cause of her fall without speculation and that the wind, rather than an employee’s cart, caused the accident.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate 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 genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for the nonmoving party. At this stage, the court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility.

Because this was a diversity case, the court applied New York negligence law. A negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury substantially caused by the breach. Costco challenged whether its conduct caused Cambria’s fall. The court noted that Costco did not challenge the duty or breach elements and therefore did not address them.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Cambria sufficiently identified a possible cause of her fall. Her testimony about seeing a Costco employee approaching with several unstable carts, feeling a jolt within seconds, and falling, together with her husband’s observation of carts touching her cart immediately afterward, supplied circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that a Costco employee caused the accident.

The court rejected Costco’s argument that Cambria had to see the carts make contact. It also rejected Costco’s argument that the evidence showed the wind was more likely to have caused the fall. The court found a factual dispute about whether Cambria actually told the medical personnel that the wind caused her fall, and found that her husband’s account supported her explanation.

The court also declined to resolve Costco’s arguments that Cambria’s account was physically impossible or that the employee could not be adequately identified. The court found Cambria’s account plausible when the evidence was viewed in her favor. Questions about the witnesses’ credibility and the movements of Cambria and the employee were for a jury, not the court, to decide.

Disposition

Judge Lisa Margaret Smith denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that material factual issues remained concerning the cause of Cambria’s fall and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 27.