United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Matthew F. Kennelly United States District Judge
Cecilia
Kornfeind sued Target Corporation in Illinois state court,
asserting a claim of negligence in connection with a slip and
fall at a Target store. Target removed the case to federal
court based on diversity of citizenship. Target has moved for
summary judgement. For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies Target's motion.
Facts
The
Court takes the following facts from the parties' summary
judgment submissions.
Kornfeind
went to the Target store located at 4466 N. Broadway in
Chicago on Sunday, March 13, 2016 with a group of people from
her real estate class to study for a test. She arrived around
4:00 p.m. and studied at the Starbucks inside of the Target
store for about two hours. When the study session finished
around 6:00 p.m., Kornfeind became hungry and decided to go
to the stores' Food Avenue to get something to eat with
another person from her class named Valerie. Target's
Food Avenue sells food items like pizza, hot dogs, and
popcorn. It is a "very high traffic portion of the
store." Kornfeind stood in line there for about 10
minutes and says she was able to see the area where she
eventually slipped. She does not recall seeing anyone drop
anything on the floor. After placing her food order and
asking for a cup for water, Kornfeind walked toward the soda
machines and slipped and fell on a substance. She noticed
that the substance was oily or greasy and three to four steps
away from the food counter. The fall occurred on the tile
floor directly in front of one of two mats that had been
placed in front of the soda machines.
Several
Target employees came to Kornfeind's aid. Victor Garduno
arrived first after being called by a cashier; he paged Megan
O'Connell, who then paged Jessica Medina. Medina
completed an incident report. Dwayne Aponte, a Target
"protection specialist," witnessed the incident via
live surveillance.
Target
has a policy that requires every employee to inspect and
clean the floor within her assigned area of the store.
Garduno was one of the employees responsible for periodically
checking the front end of the store, where the Food Avenue is
located, to make sure there are no dangerous conditions like
spills. He described his routine for inspecting the floor as
"briefly walking over." Garduno and O'Connell
stated that the Food Avenue area was inspected within three
to seven minutes before the fall and that no substance was
observed on the floor at that time. Medina also stated that a
walk-through is done by a Target employee every five minutes.
Target witnesses testified that on this particular day, no
Target employees were aware of the existence of the alleged
substance, they received no complaints about the presence of
any substance on the floor, and they were unaware of any
prior incidents or complaints involving the area of
Kornfeind's fall. Finally, Kornfeind does not recall the
mats on the floor having any rips or tears.
Discussion
Summary
judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, the discovery
and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for
summary judgment, the Court views the record in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw reasonable
inferences in that party's favor. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Lesch v. Crown Cork
& Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 2002). A
genuine issue of triable fact exists only if "the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477
U.S. at 248.
To
recover on a claim of negligence under Illinois law, the
plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed by the
defendant, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately
caused by the breach. See, e.g., Pavlik v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 323 Ill.App.3d 1060, 1063, 753 N.E.2d
1007, 1010 (2001). Illinois law imposes upon businesses a
duty to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe
condition to avoid injuring their invitees. Reid v.
Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc., 545 F.3d 479, 481 (7th
Cir. 2008). Target does not dispute this, instead it argues
that Kornfeind cannot demonstrate that it breached its duty.
Under Illinois law:
[a] business owner breaches it duty to an invitee who slips
on a foreign substance if (1) the substance was placed there
by the negligence of the proprietor or (2) its servant knew
of its presence, or (3) the substance was there a sufficient
length of time so that, in the exercise of ordinary care, its
presence should have been discovered, i.e. the proprietor had
constructive notice of the substance.
Pavlik, 323 Ill.App.3d at 1063, 753 N.E.2d at 1010
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). When a
plaintiff alleges constructive knowledge, the amount of time
that the substance was on the floor is "of critical
importance." Reid, 545 F.3d at 481 (internal
quotation marks omitted). "Absent any evidence
demonstrating the length of time that the substance was on
the floor, a plaintiff cannot establish constructive
knowledge." Id. at 482.
Kornfeind
contends that the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to
infer that Target negligently caused the spill, had actual or
constructive notice of the spill, or voluntarily assumed a
duty to remedy all spills generated from the soda machines.
Target disputes each contention. The Court addresses each
point in turn.
1.
Creation ...