Fourth Circuit Revived Slip-and-Fall Case Against Wal-Mart

Ashley Brown filed a premises liability lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP after slipping and falling in a grocery aisle of a Virginia store. The fall occurred in July 2017 when Brown stepped on liquid from a broken jar of spaghetti sauce. She alleged that Wal-Mart either caused the hazard or failed to reasonably detect and remove it. Brown sustained injuries to her left ankle and shoulder and sought damages in federal district court.

Brown testified that she entered the store, selected a shopping cart, and proceeded to the pasta aisle. She slipped in a large puddle of red liquid, then noticed a broken jar of spaghetti sauce nearby. Brown stated that she did not see the spill before she fell and that no warning signs were present. A store associate arrived after the fall and began cleaning the area. Surveillance footage showed the spill but did not clearly capture its origin.

Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Brown had no evidence the store had actual or constructive notice of the spill. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that Brown failed to present evidence showing how long the spill existed or that Wal-Mart employees knew or should have known about it in time to prevent the fall.

Fourth Circuit reversed based on video and circumstantial evidence

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment ruling de novo. The court analyzed Virginia premises liability law, which requires proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition. The court focused on whether Brown introduced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact about Wal-Mart’s constructive notice.

The court emphasized that a plaintiff may rely on circumstantial evidence, including video footage, to establish how long a spill existed. Brown argued that the store’s surveillance video, covering approximately 90 minutes before her fall, failed to show any employee walking down the aisle. The court concluded that a jury could infer from this footage that Wal-Mart employees did not inspect the area for an extended period and, as a result, may have failed to detect the spill in a timely manner.

The court also noted that the size and conspicuousness of the spill could support a finding that it was present long enough to be discovered through reasonable diligence. The court found that Brown presented enough evidence to allow a jury to consider whether Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the condition.

Final outcome

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. It held that Brown introduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to raise a triable issue regarding Wal-Mart’s knowledge of the hazard.

Help with slip-and-fall claims and premises liability cases

If you suffered injuries on someone else’s property due to a hazardous condition, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles premises liability claims involving slip-and-fall accidents, store hazards, and negligence. ReachFourth Circuit Revived Slip-and-Fall Case Against Wal-Mart out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.