Cuello v. Target Corporation

Background

Stacey Cuello was shopping in Target Corporation’s home-goods aisle in the Bronx on April 6, 2021. She reached for a two-foot-tall wicker basket on a high shelf. A heavy tray, which an unknown person had placed on top of the basket, slid off and struck her in the face under her left eye.

Cuello sued Target for negligence. She conceded that Target did not create the hazard and did not have actual notice of it—that is, she did not claim Target knew about the particular tray before the accident. She argued instead that Target had constructive notice, meaning the hazard was visible and existed long enough that Target reasonably should have discovered and corrected it. She also argued that Target failed to conduct a reasonable inspection that would have found the hazard.

Target moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to win under the law.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied New York substantive negligence law and the federal summary-judgment standard. In a premises-liability case, a plaintiff generally must show that the property owner created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The court also explained that, under the cases cited by the parties, a failure to conduct reasonable inspections may either support constructive notice or provide an independent basis for liability. The court did not resolve that difference in legal formulations because it found that Cuello had presented enough evidence under either approach to proceed.

First, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the tray visible and apparent. Cuello testified that she noticed the tray on top of the basket before pulling the basket from the shelf. The court stated that a jury could find that the unattached tray, sitting high on the basket, was a hazard that a reasonable inspection would have discovered.

Second, the court held that the evidence created a jury question about how long the tray had been in place. Surveillance footage covered approximately 38 minutes before the accident, but it was distant and grainy. Target argued that a person seen near the shelving shortly before the accident might have placed the tray there, which would mean the hazard existed too briefly to support constructive notice. Cuello interpreted the footage differently and argued that it did not show anyone placing the tray on the basket.

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that no one placed the tray on the basket during those 38 minutes. If so, the jury could also find that the hazard existed long enough for Target to discover and remedy it. The court acknowledged that a jury could instead interpret the video as showing that the tray was placed shortly before the accident, or could find the video inconclusive. Those competing interpretations meant the issue could not be resolved on summary judgment.

Third, the court held that the evidence supported a jury question about whether Target conducted a reasonable inspection. Target’s procedures called for an initial search of the department when the closing team began its shift, and Target employees were expected to look for misplaced merchandise, called “foreigns.” Target argued that an inspection had occurred at the start of the shift, approximately 49 minutes before the accident. But the court found that a jury could conclude from the video that no inspection of the relevant aisle occurred during the 38 minutes shown, and that the evidence about an earlier inspection was not conclusive.

The court also found that the post-incident report identifying employees who had supposedly been in the area within 30 minutes before the accident did not establish that an inspection occurred. The report was based on assumptions by Amauri Gonzalez, who had not spoken with the identified employees and did not know whether they had inspected the area. The court stated that a reasonable jury could find an inspection gap of at least 49 minutes unreasonable.

Disposition

The court denied Target Corporation’s motion for summary judgment. The case was ordered to proceed to trial. The ruling did not determine whether Target was negligent or whether Cuello would prevail; it determined only that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to decide the disputed issues.