Kirbaran v. Target Corporation

Background

Uma Kirbaran alleged that she slipped on a sanitizing wipe while walking in the toy department of a Target store in the Bronx on May 25, 2021. She brought a negligence claim against Target, alleging that Target failed to maintain the floor properly and failed to warn her about a dangerous condition. Kirbaran testified that she slipped on a wipe and fell forward onto her knees. Three wipes were found near her foot after the fall. She later described pain and medical treatment, including ankle surgery.

Target moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on an important issue. The court applied New York law to the negligence claim. Under that law, a customer must show that the store had a duty to keep its premises reasonably safe, breached that duty, and caused an injury. In a slip-and-fall case, the customer generally must also provide evidence that the store created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Constructive notice means that the condition was visible and existed long enough for the store to discover and correct it.

Court’s Analysis

The court first rejected Kirbaran’s argument that Target had to produce evidence of when the aisle was last inspected or cleaned. Because this was a federal diversity case, the court applied federal procedural rules to the summary-judgment burden. Kirbaran therefore had to provide evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about whether Target created the condition or had notice of it; Target could rely on the absence of such evidence.

The court held that Kirbaran had not shown that Target created the dangerous condition. Her theories—that Target failed to adopt a policy for disposing of used wipes and failed to inspect the aisles reasonably—concerned a failure to clean, a lack of policy, or allowing a condition to remain. The court explained that these circumstances did not constitute the deliberate, affirmative act required to show that Target created the condition.

The court also held that Kirbaran had not shown constructive notice. Neither Kirbaran nor Target employees knew how long the wipe had been on the floor or how it got there. Although the parties disputed whether the wipes were wet when dispensed, Kirbaran accepted that the wipe was dry when she fell. The court concluded that the wipe’s dryness might suggest that it had been dispensed some time earlier, but it did not show how long the wipe had been on the toy-department floor. Kirbaran’s argument that the wipe had been dropped while wet and remained on the floor long enough to dry was speculation. The court also found that her evidence did not show that a reasonable inspection would have discovered the wipe.

Disposition

The court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment on Kirbaran’s negligence claim. It denied Target’s request for oral argument as moot, directed the clerk to terminate the motions, and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not state that the judgment was entered with or without prejudice.