Thomason v. Target Corporation

Background

Adrian Thomason alleged that she slipped and fell on green liquid at a Target store in the Bronx on October 10, 2017. She testified that she did not see the liquid before falling, did not know how it got onto the floor, and did not know how long it had been there. Darryl Carrington, who was with her, described the liquid as dark green and possibly like guacamole, but he also could not say how long it had been on the floor.

Target employees helped Thomason after the fall. She later went to an emergency room and was diagnosed with a broken left ankle. Thomason initially sued Target and Target Enterprises in New York state court, alleging negligence under New York law. The case was removed to federal court, and Thomason later voluntarily dismissed Target Enterprises. Target then moved for summary judgment on Thomason’s claim, and Thomason opposed the motion.

Legal Standard

For a negligence claim involving a dangerous condition on property, a plaintiff must show that the defendant created the condition, had actual notice of it, or had constructive notice of it. Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough for employees to discover and correct it, or that the property owner knew about a recurring dangerous condition.

Because the case was in federal court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governed the summary-judgment procedure, while New York law governed the underlying negligence claim. At summary judgment, the party bringing the claim must produce evidence supporting each element that the party would have to prove at trial. The court explained that, in this setting, Thomason—not Target—had to produce evidence that Target had constructive notice of the liquid.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Thomason had not created a triable dispute about constructive notice. Neither Thomason nor Carrington knew how long the liquid had been on the floor, and their descriptions of its color and possible type did not show how long it had been there. Thomason also offered no other evidence establishing the spill’s duration.

The court noted that Target had not provided definitive records showing when inspections occurred that day. But Target presented evidence that its stores were regularly inspected and that an inspection would typically have occurred about thirty minutes before Thomason’s fall. The court ruled that Target’s lack of more specific inspection evidence did not prevent summary judgment because Thomason still had the initial burden to produce evidence that Target had notice of the hazard.

The court also rejected Thomason’s reliance on New York state cases requiring defendants to provide specific evidence that an area was inspected before a fall. It held that New York’s state-court burden-shifting approach did not apply to this federal summary-judgment motion.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan granted Target’s motion for summary judgment because Thomason had not shown that Target had constructive notice of the green liquid. The court did not address Target’s separate argument that Thomason had not established the cause of the incident. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.