Demelio v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Background

Lisa Demelio sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP over injuries she allegedly suffered when she slipped and fell on June 2, 2018, in the hair-products aisle of a Wal-Mart store in Suffern, New York. She testified that she slipped on a clear substance that she believed was baby oil. She did not see the substance before falling, but after the fall she observed what she described as dirt, footprints, and cart marks in the spill. Photographs taken after the fall showed the aisle and several hair-product bottles on the floor. Surveillance footage showed an employee near the aisle shortly before the accident and customers moving through the area.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when the evidence would not allow a reasonable jury to find for the opposing party. Demelio conceded that there was no evidence Wal-Mart created the spill or had actual notice of it. The dispute therefore concerned constructive notice—whether the spill was visible and apparent and had existed long enough for Wal-Mart to discover and remedy it.

Court’s analysis

The court applied New York law to the premises-liability claim. It held that Demelio did not raise a genuine issue for trial on either part of constructive notice. First, the spill was not shown to have been visible and apparent before the fall. Demelio did not see it beforehand, and she identified no other person who had seen it. The court found that her observations after falling, the photographs, and the video did not establish that the substance was visible before the accident. The court also stated that the employee’s presence nearby, without a reaction to the spill, did not support the conclusion that the spill was visible.

Second, the evidence did not establish how long the spill had been on the floor. The footprints and cart marks could have been made by people who passed through the aisle shortly before or after the accident. The size of the spill did not show how long it had existed, and the employee’s presence nearby did not establish that the spill was already there when the employee passed. Because Demelio lacked evidence on both requirements for constructive notice, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find Wal-Mart liable on the record.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause granted Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Wal-Mart, terminate the pending motion, and close the case.