Clark v. Target Corporation

Background

Michelle Clark brought a single negligence claim against Target Corporation in New York state court after slipping and falling on tiled flooring near the entrance of Target’s Herald Square store on January 5, 2018. Clark allegedly fractured her left hip. Target removed the case to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. The court noted that the complaint and removal papers supported a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

The entrance included non-slip covering and carpet before the tiled area. Snow had accumulated outside after a storm, and a yellow caution cone had been placed near the edge of the carpet and tile. Clark testified that she saw the cone when she entered. Surveillance video showed 28 people entering during the 20 minutes before Clark, none of whom fell.

Legal standards

The court applied federal summary-judgment procedure and New York law governing the negligence claim. Summary judgment is appropriate 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.

Under New York law, a negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury caused by the breach. In a premises-liability case, the injured person must show that the property owner created the dangerous condition or had actual notice or constructive notice of it. Actual notice means the owner was aware of the condition. Constructive notice requires evidence that the condition was visible and existed long enough for the owner to discover and correct it.

Discussion

Clark did not argue that Target created the slippery condition. The court therefore considered whether Target had legally sufficient notice.

For actual notice, Clark relied on a Target employee’s statement describing the floor as “slightly wet” and referring to water drops. Clark interpreted the statement as showing that the employee had observed the condition 10 minutes before the fall. The court rejected that interpretation as unsupported by the document’s wording. The court explained that the statement described the area at the time of the incident, not necessarily 10 minutes earlier. It also noted that Clark’s own argument that the employee walked past without looking at the area undercut the claim that the employee had seen the dangerous condition. The record also contained no evidence that Target had received complaints about the area before the fall.

For constructive notice, the parties drew competing inferences from the surveillance video. Target argued that the condition could not have existed more than 95 seconds before the fall because another customer crossed the area without falling. Clark pointed to video showing another customer nearly slipping about 17 minutes earlier. The court found both timing arguments speculative. The evidence did not establish how long the particular accumulation of water that caused Clark’s fall had been present.

The court also rejected Clark’s arguments that Target should have used more caution cones, placed the cone on the tile rather than the carpet, or assigned an employee to continuously monitor the tiled floor. The court stated that Target had no obligation to constantly remove moisture tracked into the store during inclement weather and that Clark had not shown that the approximately 24 feet of water-absorbing floor covering was legally insufficient.

Disposition

The court held that Clark had not presented evidence of an essential element of her negligence claim—actual or constructive notice of the condition. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted Target’s motion for summary judgment, terminated the motion, and directed the clerk to close the case.