Morgan v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Background

Maria Morgan sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, over injuries she allegedly suffered while shopping at a Wal-Mart store in Mohegan Lake, New York, on October 24, 2017. Morgan testified that, while she was bent over looking at an item on a bottom shelf of a clearance display, something struck the back of her head and neck. She did not know whether she had seen or touched the item before it fell. She later identified it as a comforter set.

Morgan saw a Wal-Mart employee approximately five feet away shortly before the incident. She believed the employee was stocking shelves, but she did not see the employee handling the comforter or stocking the display where the accident occurred. Morgan also did not recall seeing items stacked improperly or dangerously. Wal-Mart’s records and testimony indicated that the incident was not captured on video. Morgan alleged that she suffered various injuries, including a traumatic brain injury and memory loss.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of an important fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Legal standard and arguments

New York law governed Morgan’s negligence and premises-liability claim. To prevail on that claim, Morgan had to show that a dangerous condition caused her injury and that Wal-Mart either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Actual notice means the defendant knew about the condition; constructive notice generally means the condition existed long enough that the defendant should have discovered it.

Morgan did not contest Wal-Mart’s argument that there was no evidence Wal-Mart had actual or constructive notice. Instead, she argued that Wal-Mart had created the dangerous condition through its employees’ stocking activities. She also argued that placing a comforter on the top shelf of a clearance end cap violated Wal-Mart’s policy and supported an inference that Wal-Mart created the hazard.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Morgan had not produced sufficient evidence that Wal-Mart created the dangerous condition through an affirmative act. The mere presence of a Wal-Mart employee nearby was not enough, because Morgan did not see that employee carrying or handling the comforter, stocking the relevant display, or placing the comforter where it could fall.

The court also rejected Morgan’s description of the comforter as heavy. The testimony showed that heavier or larger general-merchandise items typically were not placed on end caps, but the Wal-Mart witness did not describe comforter sets as heavy or large and testified that it would not be unusual to see comforters on the top shelf of an end cap. Morgan had not picked up the comforter and had no evidence of its weight. The court concluded that another customer or Morgan herself could have caused the comforter to fall, and Morgan had not presented evidence ruling out those possibilities.

The court separately considered the Noseworthy rule, a New York rule that can allow an injured person with proven accident-related memory loss greater latitude in using circumstantial evidence. The court found that the rule did not apply. Morgan remembered important details immediately before and after the incident, and neither Morgan nor her medical expert specifically stated that she could not remember the incident itself. The court further found that Wal-Mart did not have greater access to information about what happened because there was no video and the only other identified witness was a former employee whom Morgan did not depose. The court explained that, even if the rule applied, it would not eliminate Morgan’s need to provide some evidence from which negligence could reasonably be inferred.

Disposition

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