Brice v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Background

Erieuse Brice brought a common-law negligence action against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP after falling on March 25, 2018, on the sidewalk in front of a Wal-Mart store at 275 Main Street. The opinion states that Brice was injured, required hospital and medical care, and lost earnings and income.

The property was leased through several arrangements. 275 Main Street Associates, LP leased part of the property to Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, which subleased that portion to Wal-Mart. The lease stated that the sidewalk was not part of the space leased to Wal-Mart and that Associates was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk and other common areas, including keeping sidewalk surfaces level, smooth, and evenly covered.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the claim and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Legal issue

The parties agreed that New York law applied. To establish negligence, Brice had to show that Wal-Mart owed her a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused her damages as a result.

Wal-Mart argued that it did not possess, control, or maintain the sidewalk and therefore owed Brice no duty concerning its condition. Brice argued that property owners and tenants have a duty to maintain their property in a reasonably safe condition. She also argued that Wal-Mart could be liable if it caused or created the dangerous condition, even if it did not otherwise control or maintain the sidewalk.

Court’s analysis

The court held that a tenant generally has a duty to maintain the portion of property leased to it in a reasonably safe condition. But the lease here clearly excluded the sidewalk from Wal-Mart’s leased premises and assigned responsibility for maintaining the sidewalk and common areas to Associates. Because Wal-Mart did not possess or have the right to maintain or control the sidewalk, the court ruled that Brice could not prevail on a theory that Wal-Mart was responsible for the sidewalk merely because of a statutory or contractual maintenance obligation.

The court separately considered Brice’s theory that Wal-Mart caused or created the hazardous condition. Under New York law, a tenant may be liable for creating a dangerous condition or for negligently repairing the property, even when the tenant does not otherwise control the area.

The court found that Wal-Mart had not produced evidence showing that it did not negligently repair the sidewalk or cause the hazardous condition. Wal-Mart relied in part on an unsupported statement that it had searched for sidewalk-repair records from March 25, 2016, through March 25, 2018, but had found none. The court ruled that this statement was insufficient at the summary-judgment stage. It also ruled that materials submitted for private judicial review and materials offered for the first time in a reply could not satisfy Wal-Mart’s initial burden of proof.

Disposition

The court granted Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment to the extent Brice sought to hold Wal-Mart liable because it was statutorily or contractually responsible for maintaining the sidewalk. The court denied the motion on the basis that Wal-Mart caused or created a hazardous condition. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 10.

Judge Nelson S. Roman signed the opinion and order on March 23, 2022.