Grant v The Golub Corporation
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Premises liability in the retail grocery industry involving an allegedly hazardous endcap display of stacked water cases protruding into a store aisle.
Supreme Court granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed the negligence complaint.
The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to defendants.
Defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the display was open, obvious, and not inherently dangerous, and the record, including testimony, video, photographs, and expert proof, raised triable issues of fact about whether the protruding water cases caused the fall and created a dangerous condition.
Background
David Grant allegedly tripped and fell while shopping in a Price Chopper store owned by defendants in Glenville, Schenectady County. He testified that he caught his foot on something soft and plastic-like near an endcap display and believed it was a case of bottled water on the floor or protruding from the display. Plaintiff testified that cases of water were hanging over the edge of the endcap before the fall. Surveillance video showed Grant tripping near the display and a case of water falling off as he went down. A photograph showed that the lower cases extended farther into the aisle than the cases stacked above them. Grant died during the appeal, and his widow, Katrina Grant, as administrator of his estate, was substituted.
Lower Court Decision
The lower court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint, effectively finding no triable issue requiring a jury trial on negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, defendants did not establish that the endcap display was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law. The court also rejected defendants' argument that causation was purely speculative, finding that the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that Grant tripped on the protruding water display. In addition, plaintiff's retail safety expert raised a factual issue by opining that the display violated industry safety standards because the lower cases were below a customer's typical line of sight and created a tripping hazard. The court therefore reversed and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in trip-and-fall cases, whether a condition is open and obvious or inherently dangerous is often a jury question, especially where a visible condition may still function as a trap for the unwary. It also confirms that circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish causation and negligence at the summary judgment stage when the plaintiff cannot identify the precise object with absolute certainty.
Retailers may face trial on premises liability claims where merchandise displays protrude into customer walkways, even if the condition is visible, if the layout could reasonably be found hazardous or misleading and the evidence supports an inference that the display caused the fall.