Moy v. Target Corporation

Background

Henry Moy sued Target Corporation under New York negligence law after slipping and falling on a puddle of pasta sauce at a Target store on March 12, 2020. Target removed the state-court action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. After discovery ended, Target moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence would not allow a reasonable jury to rule for the opposing party.

The undisputed facts showed that the sauce and the floor were both white. Moy did not see the sauce before he fell. He did not know when or how it spilled, and there were no witnesses to the fall. A broken sauce jar was found nearby, but no part of the jar was in the puddle. Target employees testified that they were not aware of the spill before Moy’s fall. The sauce was still liquid, and the aisle otherwise appeared clean and orderly, without footprints or track marks through the spill.

Legal standard

Under New York law, a premises-liability plaintiff must show a dangerous condition, an injury caused by that condition, and that the defendant either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough for the defendant’s employees to discover and correct it.

Because this was a federal diversity case, the court applied the federal summary-judgment standard. Under that standard, Target could prevail by pointing to a lack of evidence supporting an essential part of Moy’s claim. Moy needed more than speculation; he needed evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Target had constructive notice.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Moy had not shown the spill was visible and apparent before the accident. The sauce blended into the white floor, and Moy himself did not notice it before slipping. The fact that people could see the sauce after the fall did not establish that it was apparent beforehand.

The court also held, as an independent ground, that Moy offered no evidence showing how long the sauce had been on the floor. His argument that an employee would have heard the jar break depended on unsupported assumptions about the employee’s location and whether he could have heard the jar. The employee’s broom and cleaning supplies likewise did not show that he knew about this particular spill. The wet condition of the sauce, the absence of footprints or track marks, and the regular movement of Target employees and cleaners through the aisles instead did not support an inference that the spill had been present for a substantial period.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Target’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 25 and close the case.