Cordon Salazar v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

Background

Ligia E. Cordon Salazar sued Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, for personal injuries from a slip and fall at the Wal-Mart in Mohegan Lake, New York, on July 28, 2021. The action was filed in New York state court and later removed to the Southern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction. The parties consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide a case without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result.

Salazar testified that she fell because of spilled water near the store’s ice machine. She did not see the water before falling and did not know how it came to be on the floor, how long it had been there, or how much water was present. Wal-Mart assistant store manager Curt Taylor testified that employees were trained to look for water or debris and to arrange for spills to be cleaned. He did not know of problems with the ice machine that caused water on the floor, did not recall seeing water there before the incident, and did not see any substance when he walked past the area shortly before Salazar fell.

Wal-Mart submitted two versions of surveillance video. The video showed a man removing bags of ice from the machine, several people passing the area, Taylor walking past the machine three times, and Salazar falling. Taylor stated that he did not see a substance on the floor when he adjusted a floor runner or when he passed the machine about a minute before the fall. No one complained to him about something on the floor before the fall. Salazar did not dispute Wal-Mart’s material facts, and the court independently reviewed the record.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Under New York negligence law, Salazar had to show that Wal-Mart owed her a duty, breached that duty, and caused her injury. In a premises-liability slip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must also show that the defendant created the dangerous condition or had actual notice of it, meaning direct knowledge, or constructive notice, meaning the condition was visible and apparent and existed long enough that employees should have discovered and corrected it.

Wal-Mart conceded that there was a substance on the floor, but argued that the substance alone was not enough to prove negligence. Salazar did not argue that Wal-Mart created the condition or had actual notice, so the court focused on constructive notice.

The court rejected Salazar’s argument that photographs taken after the fall and Taylor’s actions after the fall showed the water had been visible beforehand. Evidence of what employees observed after an accident did not establish that the condition was visible and apparent before the accident. The court also found no evidence that anyone saw the water before Salazar fell. The video showed people passing the area without apparent difficulty, and Taylor did not see liquid when he passed about a minute before the fall.

The court separately concluded that Salazar lacked evidence showing how long the water had been on the floor. Even assuming the man loading the ice caused the spill, only about five or six minutes passed before Salazar fell. Although some New York cases have found short periods sufficient for constructive notice, those decisions depended on additional facts, such as evidence that the area was a center of employee activity or that the condition showed signs of having existed for some time. Salazar offered no comparable evidence. She also offered no evidence that the spill occurred before the surveillance video began.

Because Salazar did not provide enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the water, she did not raise a genuine factual issue about whether Wal-Mart breached its duty to her.

Disposition

The court granted Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for Wal-Mart, terminate the motion, and close the case.