Shanta Green v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability in retail: slip-and-fall in a grocery store customer restroom; constructive notice and summary judgment burdens.
Granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to show lack of constructive notice where the sole witness could not authenticate inspection logs, did not recall working that day, and the logs reflected a significant inspection gap before closing. Plaintiff’s not seeing the clear liquid before falling did not, by itself, establish lack of notice absent admissible proof of a prior reasonable inspection.
Background
Plaintiff alleged that on March 12, 2018, around 10:30 p.m., she slipped on a clear liquid in a Whole Foods customer bathroom. After the fall, her pants and hands were wet. She testified the bathroom was not clean upon entry, noting an overflowing trash can and tissue on the floor under and in front of the can.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, effectively finding no triable issue as to notice of the condition.
Appellate Division Reversal
Unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs; motion denied. Defendants did not establish lack of constructive notice: their supervisor could not verify working that day or authenticate the inspection logs, and the logs showed no bathroom inspection between 9:12 p.m. and the 11 p.m. closing despite claimed hourly checks. Without admissible evidence of a reasonable inspection prior to the accident, plaintiff’s failure to observe the clear liquid did not conclusively negate notice. Because defendants failed to make a prima facie showing, the court did not consider plaintiff’s opposition. Arguments about actual creation or actual notice were not considered to the extent they were abandoned or raised for the first time on appeal.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that in slip-and-fall cases, a defendant moving for summary judgment must submit admissible proof of a reasonable inspection protocol and compliance close in time to the accident. Unauthenticated or unreliable inspection records and significant inspection gaps fail the prima facie burden; if that burden is unmet, the motion is denied without reaching the opposition. A plaintiff’s failure to notice a clear liquid before falling does not defeat constructive notice absent proof of recent inspection.
Premises owners must present admissible, authenticated inspection evidence showing timely checks before an accident; otherwise, summary judgment on lack of constructive notice will be denied.