Puello v. Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, LLC

Background

Francisco Puello brought a personal-injury negligence action against Jetro Cash and Carry Enterprises, LLC, based on alleged negligence in maintaining and operating the store premises. Jetro moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the evidence did not support Puello’s negligence claim without a trial.

According to the record described in the opinion, Puello went to Jetro’s store with Ramon Ambiory Guzman Pena on July 8, 2017. Puello and Pena used a large dolly and shopped for about fifteen to twenty minutes. They then entered a walkway about four to five feet wide. Puello was walking in front of the dolly when he moved around a woman and children coming toward him. The woman and children were navigating around a pallet holding boxes. About five feet after passing them, Puello tripped over a box on the floor.

The box was approximately knee-high and three feet wide, and it extended about two to three feet into the walkway from shelving. Puello testified that he did not see it before he fell because he was looking ahead at the approaching woman and trying to find his turn. He also testified that ten or fifteen boxes were on the walkway floor and that boxes were protruding from shelves. Pena stated in an affidavit that, about two or three minutes before the accident, he saw two people wearing Jetro shirts handling boxes near the accident area, including the box involved in the fall.

Jetro employees gave different evidence. The Assistant Branch Manager testified that merchandise was supposed to be stored on shelves, pallets, or freestanding shelving, and that management conducted safety walks three times each day to look for slip, trip, and fall hazards. Another employee testified that store policy prohibited boxes from being on the floor or extending from shelves, and that managers had to inspect the store. That employee said he had not seen merchandise protruding into the aisle on the accident date or otherwise.

Legal standard

Under the summary-judgment standard, the court may rule without a trial only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

Under New York negligence law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty, breached that duty, and caused an injury. Landowners must use reasonable care to keep their property safe and must eliminate, protect against, or warn about dangerous conditions. A defendant generally must have created the condition or had actual notice or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough for the defendant to discover and correct it.

Court’s analysis

Jetro made two arguments: that the box was open and obvious and therefore did not violate its duty of care, and that Jetro neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it. The court rejected both arguments for purposes of summary judgment.

Whether the condition was open and obvious

The court explained that an owner generally need not warn about an open and obvious danger. But a condition that would ordinarily be visible may become a hidden trap if it is obstructed or the person is distracted. Whether a danger is open and obvious is usually a fact question for the jury unless the undisputed evidence requires only one conclusion.

The court found that the evidence did not require a finding that the box was open and obvious. The walkway was narrow, a pallet with boxes was in the area, and a woman and children were approaching Puello. Puello said he was focused on navigating around them and did not see the boxes on the floor. The court also stated that, even if the box were open and obvious, that would eliminate only a duty to warn; it would not eliminate Jetro’s separate duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

The court found a factual dispute about the condition of the store. Puello described boxes on the floor and protruding from shelves, while Jetro’s witnesses testified that store policy prohibited such conditions and that they did not see boxes on the floor or protruding from shelves. A reasonable jury could credit Puello’s account and find that the boxes and pallet created an unsafe condition.

Whether Jetro created the condition

The court held that a reasonable jury could find that Jetro created the condition. Pena’s affidavit said that Jetro employees had handled boxes in the immediate area, including the box involved in the accident, only minutes before Puello fell. The court found that this evidence could support an inference that Jetro employees created the dangerous condition. The absence of direct evidence did not require summary judgment because negligence could be proved through reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence.

Whether Jetro had notice

The court also found a factual dispute about whether Jetro had actual or constructive notice. Puello’s testimony about numerous boxes on the walkway, together with Pena’s statement that employees had handled the boxes minutes earlier, could support notice. Jetro relied on evidence that employees had not seen boxes on the floor and that management conducted safety inspections. But the witnesses did not say when the walkway was last inspected on the day of the accident. The conflicting evidence prevented the court from deciding as a matter of law whether Jetro knew about the condition or should have discovered it in time to correct it.

Disposition

The court denied Jetro’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Dkt. No. 32. The opinion did not decide who would ultimately prevail on the negligence claim; it decided that the disputed evidence required the motion to be denied.