Overview of Frazier v. Walmart Corp. Inc.
In Frazier v. Walmart Corp. Inc., No. CV 21-18147 (ZNQ) (RLS), 2025 WL 456917 (D.N.J. Feb. 11, 2025), the District Court of New Jersey granted summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 to the defendant due to the plaintiff’s failure to prove actual or constructive notice of a condition on the floor.
The plaintiff, while shopping at the defendant’s store, slipped and fell on a puddle of water. The plaintiff claimed that it happened after she stepped aside to allow a store employee pushing a pallet of goods to pass through the aisle.
Slip-and-Fall Incident Details
The plaintiff’s claim hinged on whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the puddle of water. The Court iterated that a proprietor is liable for injuries to an invitee if he actually knew of the dangerous condition or if the condition had existed for such a length of time that he should have known about it.
The defendant argued that neither existed, while the plaintiff argued that the defendant had notice because an employee was present when the plaintiff fell. The Court ultimately found that the plaintiff did not offer evidence in support of her position.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Evaluation of Actual Notice
With regard to actual notice, the Court found that plaintiff’s position that the employee must have seen the liquid on the floor when they walked through the aisle, without more, was pure speculation that was unsupported by the evidence.
The plaintiff conceded that the puddle was likely smaller than her hand. There was no evidence to support that the employee, or any other employee, had seen the puddle prior to the incident.
Moreover, the employee was pushing a pallet of goods and there was no evidence that the employee caused the spill or that the spill was easily detectable. The plaintiff also did not see the puddle prior to her fall. As such, the plaintiff’s claim was speculative which was insufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact for the jury.
Assessment of Constructive Notice
As it pertained to constructive notice, there was no evidence of how long the puddle existed, and the plaintiff admitted to same. The plaintiff failed to establish an inference that the length of time the puddle existed would be sufficient to show that the defendant had constructive notice.
As well, the characteristics of the puddle, smaller than the plaintiff’s hand and likely clear, did not support the inference of prior knowledge without some other indication as to its creation or how long it existed.
The plaintiff also argued that the employee should have noticed the spill. The Court found that such an argument only assumed rather than established that the condition was present for a sufficient duration that a reasonably diligent person should have known of it. The duration of the spill, along with the source of it, were not known by either party. There were also no liquids sold in the aisle where the plaintiff fell. Absent pure speculation, the record was devoid of any evidence as to how long the condition was on the floor.
Implications for Legal Practice
Importance of Evidence in Establishing Notice
When an employee is in the general vicinity of a condition that causes a plaintiff to fall, the plaintiff will undoubtedly oppose a motion for summary judgment on the basis that said employee should have discovered the condition.
Be sure to establish during the discovery period whether there is any evidence of how long the condition existed by questioning the plaintiff on the characteristics of the condition, such as whether it was tracked around the aisle or whether it contained any dirt or debris.
Recommendations for Legal Practitioners
Always argue that it is speculative to assume the employee should have noticed the condition when the condition looked fresh, i.e., it was not present for long enough to discover it. One should also establish that the employee was conducting other duties and that the employee had no reason to believe there was a condition on the floor.