Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Smith v. K-Mart Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division

February 2, 2017

TIMOTHY SMITH, Plaintiff,
v.
K-MART CORPORATION, Defendant.

          Jeffrey W. Stowers, Jr., The Ratliff Law Firm, Cedar Bluff, Virginia, for Plaintiff

          Danielle D. Giroux and Kathryn D. Jones, Harman, Claytor, Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          James P. Jones United States District Judge

         In this diversity action, the plaintiff seeks recovery for injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell on premises of a retail store. The plaintiff contends that the store owner was negligent by failing to keep the premises free from dangerous conditions of which it knew or should have known. Based on the undisputed facts, I will grant the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I.

         The essential facts, taken from the summary judgment record and recited in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, are as follows.

         On October 17, 2015, at approximately 6:15 p.m., the plaintiff, Timothy Smith, a citizen of Virginia, was shopping with his wife at the Kmart store in Cedar Bluff, Virginia. Kmart Corporation is incorporated in Michigan with its principal place of business in Illinois. While walking down one of the aisles, Smith slipped on a puddle of liquid on the floor. The puddle of liquid was clear, odorless, and approximately two feet wide. The plaintiff injured his back as he fell into a shelf. Smith and his wife both deny seeing the substance on the floor prior to his fall.

         At the time of the fall, no employees were in the aisle containing the spilled substance. Additionally, no employees were aware of the substance being on the floor prior to the incident. A manager on duty at the time of the incident prepared an incident report from information obtained by Smith.

         At his deposition, Smith testified that he did not know how the liquid got onto the floor or how long it had been there. To Smith's knowledge, an employee who had been working in the nearby layaway department did not see the puddle until after Smith slipped.

         Joshua Cruey, an employee of the defendant, had been working at the store on the day of the incident. Following Smith's fall, Cruey cleaned the spill and placed a warning sign next to the area. Cruey testified that employees were trained to clean up spills. In the six months that he worked at the store, he “maybe cleaned up two or three.” Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C, at 8, ECF No. 17-3. Cruey had seen spills in that area of the store before, but he testified that customers drop things in all areas of the store. There was no set inspection or clean-up schedule during store hours, but employees “did a security scan once an hour.” Id. at 9.

         Cruey testified that he did not know how long the puddle had been on the floor before Smith's fall. During his deposition, Cruey had the follow exchange with plaintiff's counsel:

Q So it could have been there for ten minutes?
A Yeah
Q An ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.