Alaimo v. Sam's East, Inc.

Background

Susan Alaimo sued Sam’s East, Inc. after she slipped on a cherry with a pit in the seasonal aisle of a Sam’s Club store on June 23, 2018. She testified that she did not see anything on the floor before falling. After the fall, she described the cherry as smashed, sticky, thick, and not fresh. She alleged that Sam’s East had constructive notice—that is, that the condition was visible and had existed long enough for the store to discover and correct it.

Alaimo did not identify evidence that Sam’s East placed the cherry on the floor or had actual notice of it before the accident. She relied on circumstantial evidence, including the cherry’s condition, nearby stains and scuff marks, and photographs. In affidavits, Alaimo and her daughter described some marks as cart tracks and suggested that other cherries had been trampled or dragged across the floor.

Legal standard

The court applied New York substantive law to the negligence claim. Under that law, a plaintiff must show a duty, a breach, and an injury resulting from the breach. For a dangerous condition on property, the plaintiff must show that the defendant created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice requires evidence that the condition was visible and apparent and existed for enough time that the defendant could have discovered and remedied it.

At summary judgment, the court decides whether the evidence presents a genuine dispute that a reasonable jury could resolve for the nonmoving party. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor, but speculation and unsupported assertions are not enough.

Court’s analysis

For purposes of the motion, the court assumed without deciding that the cherry was visible and apparent. It nevertheless held that Alaimo offered no evidence showing how long the cherry had been on the floor. The cherry could have been placed there only seconds or minutes before the accident, and concluding otherwise would have been speculation.

The court found that the cherry’s smashed or stale appearance after the fall did not establish how long it had been on the floor beforehand. It also found that testimony about samples being distributed nearby did not permit a reasonable inference about the cherry’s duration on the floor.

The court further held that the photographs, stains, and alleged cart marks did not solve the problem. The evidence did not show when the marks were made, and the claim that they came from other cherries was speculative. The court distinguished cases involving wet or dry footprints, cart tracks, or trails that provided evidence of how long a substance had remained on the floor.

Disposition

The court granted Sam’s East’s motion for summary judgment. It concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Sam’s East had constructive notice of the cherry and therefore held that Sam’s East was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the motion and close the case.