JULIE A. ROBINSON, District Judge.
This is a negligence action involving a "slip and fall" by Plaintiff Lalauna Sandage at a store owned and operated by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 19). The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons stated in detail below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
The facts of this case are largely uncontroverted; to the extent they are, the Court views them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff was shopping at a Wal-Mart store in Hays, Kansas. She entered a certain aisle at about 7:22 p.m. After shopping in that aisle for a few minutes, Plaintiff slipped and fell.
A Wal-Mart surveillance camera captured the incident on video. The video shows Plaintiff entering an aisle with display shelves on each side—one row of shelves lining the right side of the aisle, another row of shelves lining the left. A plastic bin sat on the floor against the left row of shelves. Plaintiff parked her shopping cart in the center of the aisle near this plastic bin and began looking at items displayed on the row of shelves to the right. As Plaintiff moved forward to select an item from one of those shelves, she stepped into a small puddle of water. Noticing the puddle, she took a step backward and looked up to determine whether water was dripping from the ceiling.
Plaintiff did not notify a Wal-Mart employee of the puddle; instead, she continued shopping along the row of shelves lining the right side of the aisle, stepping in the same puddle several times as she did so. Plaintiff never looked at the shelves on the left side of the aisle, but focused exclusively on the row of shelves to the right. After proceeding in this manner for about one minute, Plaintiff stepped backward to gain a better view of the items on the shelves to the right. She then turned and crossed for the first time between her shopping cart, which was still situated in the center of the aisle, and the plastic bin laying beside the row of shelves on the left. She slipped and fell to the ground as she passed by the plastic bin, sustaining injuries to her back, neck, and head.
Plaintiff admits that prior to her fall she was aware of the small puddle on the right side of the aisle. She declares in an affidavit, however, that a separate, previously undetected puddle sat on the left side of the aisle next to the plastic bin, and that it was this second puddle that caused her to fall. Though Plaintiff does not know the precise size of the second puddle, it was large enough that her "clothes were soaked by the time [she] got to the hospital."
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
The moving party bears the initial burden of providing the court with the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
To accomplish this, the facts "must be identified by reference to an affidavit, a deposition transcript, or a specific exhibit incorporated therein."
Finally, summary judgment is not a "disfavored procedural shortcut"; on the contrary, it is an important procedure "designed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action."
Plaintiff claims that Defendant maintained its premises in an unsafe condition and failed to warn her of and protect her from the puddle of water on which she slipped. Defendant responds that because the water sitting on the aisle floor was an open and obvious danger, Defendant owed Plaintiff no duty to protect her from the hazard that caused her to fall.
The parties agree that Kansas law governs this case. To establish negligence under Kansas law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was injured, and that a causal connection existed between the duty breached and the injury sustained.
The record in this case establishes that Plaintiff, a Wal-Mart customer, was a business invitee of Defendant at the time of her fall.
Here, because Plaintiff was a business invitee, Defendant owed her a duty to keep its aisle floors in reasonably safe condition. Defendant concedes this much. Defendant points out, however, that there is no duty to protect customers from dangers that are readily apparent and observable.
Defendant argues that because Plaintiff knew about the presence of water on the aisle floor prior to her fall, the danger that caused her injuries was "known or obvious" as a matter of law. The Court disagrees. To be sure, Plaintiff admits that she knew about the puddle of water sitting on the floor near the shelves lining the right side of the aisle. But she does not claim that puddle caused her fall. Instead, Plaintiff claims she slipped and fell on a second, previously unnoticed puddle that had collected near the row of shelves on the left side of the aisle. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, corroborates this version of events. Though Defendant's surveillance video lacks the display resolution necessary to determine the existence or location of the alleged puddles, the video clearly shows Plaintiff examining a substance on the floor on the right side of the aisle, then later slipping and falling as she stepped in a completely different spot on the aisle's left side. Plaintiff had not walked near this latter spot prior to her fall. In addition, a recorded interview administered two days after the incident tends to support the declaration in Plaintiff's affidavit that a separate puddle of water contributed to the accident: Plaintiff stated in that interview that she landed in a puddle that "was big enough that . . . [her] clothes were soaked by the time [she] got to the hospital."
The record also contains facts supporting Plaintiff's contention that the second puddle was not readily apparent. Defendant's surveillance video suggests that the store's tile floor was, in fact, glossy and white, which might have made a puddle of water difficult for Plaintiff to notice unless she stepped in that puddle first.
Defendant contends that even if there was a second puddle of water on the aisle floor, the second puddle was open and obvious because Plaintiff was aware of spilled water in the "general area" prior to her fall. Defendant cites no authority for this general-area theory. And under the circumstances presented here, the Court finds that the question of obviousness is one for the jury. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether the alleged second puddle should have been apparent to Plaintiff after she encountered the first puddle. The surveillance video shows that at the time Plaintiff noticed the first puddle, the second puddle would have been outside of her scope of vision, as the spot where she eventually slipped and fell was located behind her and to her right. Plaintiff's reaction to the first puddle, in fact, was to look up toward the ceiling rather than to her right or left, suggesting that the only water she could see was confined to a small area directly in front of her. The facts of the case do not disclose any reason for Plaintiff to have suspected that water might be standing in more than one spot in her vicinity. Absent circumstances suggesting that multiple puddles were especially likely to be present at the time of the incident,
Defendant, finally, argues that this case is similar to Smith v. Locke Supply Co.,
The case now before the Court differs from Smith in at least two material respects. First, unlike the record in Smith, the record here contains concrete, admissible evidence that the hazard Plaintiff claims to have slipped on actually existed. Plaintiff declares in her affidavit that she fell after stepping in a puddle of water sitting on the left side of the aisle floor.
On the facts of this case, a reasonable jury could find that although the first puddle Plaintiff encountered was open and obvious, the puddle that she actually slipped on was not. Accordingly, the Court finds a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the condition that caused Plaintiff's injuries presented a "known or obvious" danger. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.