Patricia Rodgers v. Moran Foods LLC

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: MCKEE, AMBRO and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: AMBRO Authoring.

Case: 17-1638

Document: 003112914425

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/26/2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 17-1638
________________
PATRICIA RODGERS,
Appellant
v.
MORAN FOODS LLC, a/k/a Save-A-Lot, LLC
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-16-cv-03641)
District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 9, 2018
Before: MCKEE, AMBRO, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed April 26, 2018)
________________
OPINION*
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 17-1638

Document: 003112914425

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/26/2018

Patricia Rodgers slipped on a puddle at a Save-A-Lot store. She appeals the
District Court’s grant of summary judgment on her negligence claim in favor of Moran
Foods, Inc., owner of Save-A-Lot. Her claim is that the Court erred in holding she did
not provide sufficient evidence that Moran Foods had actual or constructive notice of the
puddle that caused her to slip and fall.
We have jurisdiction over final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard
as the District Court. Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 265 (3d Cir.
2014). Summary judgment is proper if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to
Rodgers, there is no genuine issue of material fact and Moran Foods is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fakete v. Aetna, Inc., 308 F.3d 335, 337 (3d Cir. 2002).
Rodgers presents two reasons Moran Foods had constructive notice of the
condition: the location of the puddle on the premises and the time between the puddle’s
formation and her slip. Though together these factors may indicate constructive notice,
the evidence offered by Rodgers fails to satisfy either factor. See Lanni v. Pa. R.R. Co.,
88 A.2d 887, 889 (Pa. 1952). First, she argues the store had constructive notice because
she was “going to the register” when she slipped. But “going to the register” does not
indicate any proximity to the register, and Rodgers does not provide any evidence that the
cashier could see the puddle and therefore had actual or constructive notice of the spill.
Second, Rodgers contends the store’s violation of its “clean sweep” inspection policy
indicates the duration of the puddle. Though the store’s policy is to inspect the premises
every two hours, the log indicated the last “sweep” occurred two hours and twenty-six
2

Case: 17-1638

Document: 003112914425

Page: 3

Date Filed: 04/26/2018

minutes before she slipped. This gap caps the amount of time the puddle could have
existed but does not itself show it existed for a length of time sufficient to give the store
actual or constructive notice. Rodgers did not provide any other evidence of the duration
of the puddle prior to her slip. Thus she did not present sufficient evidence Moran Foods
had constructive notice of the puddle due to its location and the duration of its existence.
Viewing the facts most favorably to Rodgers, the District Court correctly
granted Moran Foods’ motion for summary judgment. We thus affirm.

3