Judge OKs Slip-and-Fall Lawsuit Alleging Dollar Tree Was On Notice About Detergent Spill
A federal judge has ruled there is sufficient evidence to allow a lawsuit to proceed alleging Dollar Tree knew about a potentially dangerous detergent spill in one of its stores and had time to clean it before it allegedly caused a slip and fall.
March 19, 2019 at 02:43 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge has ruled there is sufficient evidence to allow a lawsuit to proceed alleging Dollar Tree knew about a potentially dangerous detergent spill in one of its stores and had time to clean it before it allegedly caused a slip and fall.
Dollar Tree had filed a motion for summary judgment in plaintiff Gregory Nelson's personal injury lawsuit against the retailer, however, U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the lawsuit could move forward.
According to Slomsky's opinion, Nelson, 57, slipped and fell on laundry detergent at the Sharon Hill Dollar Tree store in September 2016. He fell forward and sustained “several serious and permanent injuries” to his knees, legs, hip and lower back.
Nelson testified that after he fell, he overheard a store cashier tell an EMT and police that a customer had complained about the spill 10 minutes prior to Nelson's fall. He sued and alleged that Dollar Tree failed to keep its store in a safe condition.
Dollar Tree argued the only evidence that Dollar Tree should have been on notice is inadmissible hearsay.
“The statement made by the customer of the Dollar Tree to the cashier informing her of detergent on the floor is not barred by the rule against hearsay. This is so, because the statement can be viewed in one of two ways: (1) as a statement to prove notice on the part of the defendant, or (2) as a statement constituting a present sense impression, which is an exception to the hearsay rule,” Slomsky said. “In opposing summary judgment, plaintiff argues the first viewpoint—that the customer's statement is admissible because it is not being offered for its truth but is only being introduced to prove that defendant had notice of the detergent spill prior to plaintiff's accident. Given this use of the statement, plaintiff argues it is not hearsay as defined under Rule 801(c). The court agrees.”
Slomsky said that the statement made by the Dollar Tree employee to police and EMTs is also admissible.
“Upon consideration of the Dollar Tree cashier's statement, it is clear that there exists genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether defendant had actual notice of the detergent spill and, if so, whether defendant breached its duty to plaintiff by failing to remedy the spill within a reasonable time frame,” Slomsky said. “These are questions for the factfinder to decide and, for this reason, summary judgment is not warranted.”
Nelson's attorney, Jason Manus of Kwartler Manus, said in an email that Slomsky ”made the correct ruling. I thought the motion for summary judgment was largely without merit, thankfully the judge agreed.”
Marc Perry of Post & Schell represents Dollar Tree and declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250