Crowley v. Walmart, Inc.
Filing
38
Opinion and Order: Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment 17 is denied. Signed on 5/19/2021 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PATTY L. CROWLEY,
Case No. 6:20-cv-00470-MC
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiff injured herself at a Walmart store when she tripped over an object on the floor
commonly referred to as a “stack base.” A stack base is a pallet-like platform five inches in height,
used in this case to display cases of Pepsi products. Defendant Walmart Inc. moves for summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s claim of negligence, arguing that the stack base Plaintiff tripped over
constitutes an open and obvious condition and therefore no rational juror could find the stack base
posed an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court disagrees and concludes that question of whether
the stack base posed an unreasonable risk of harm is one for the jury. Walmart’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, is DENIED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). An issue is
“genuine” if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Rivera v. Phillip
1 –OPINION & ORDER
Morris, Inc., 395 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986)). A fact is “material” if it could affect the outcome of the case. Id. The Court
reviews evidence and draws inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Miller
v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Hunt v. Cromartie, 526
U.S. 541, 552 (1999)). When the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must
present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
DISCUSSION1
On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff was shopping with her spouse in a Newport, Oregon
Walmart. While following her spouse around the end of the soda aisle, Plaintiff tripped over the
corner of a stack base, fell to the ground, and suffered injuries to her lower body.2 The parties
agree that the area was well lit and dry. They agree that the black stack base contrasts with the
white floor. The parties disagree on exactly how empty the stack base was at the moment Plaintiff
tripped.3 Regardless, it is clear that the stack base was empty enough that there was no product on
the front of the stack base (and especially the front corner where Plaintiff tripped). As noted,
Defendant argues that “[b]ecause Plaintiff encountered an open and obvious condition and the
partially empty stack base corner was not an unreasonable risk of harm,” it is entitled to summary
judgment. Reply 1 ECF No. 36.
1
The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the non-moving party.
The stack base here is a black platform roughly 48 inches long, 48 inches wide, and 5.5 inches high. Walmart uses
stack bases to display product at the end of an aisle.
3
The record is unclear if a Walmart employee placed additional cases of soda on the stack base after the incident but
before pictures were taken of the stack base.
2
2 –OPINION & ORDER
A property owner in Oregon has a duty to make their premises reasonably safe for an
invitee’s visit. Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or. App. 637, 643 (2004). An owner must exercise due care
to discover conditions on the premises that create an unreasonable risk of harm and, once
discovered, the owner must eliminate the condition creating that risk or warn any foreseeable
invitee of the risk to avoid the harm. Id. Yet not all conditions pose an unreasonable risk of harm
or are unreasonably dangerous. “A condition is not unreasonably dangerous if the hazard arising
from it would be known and understood by reasonable persons expected to encounter the
condition.” Maas v. Willer, 203 Or. App. 124, 127 (2005).
Under these facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a rational juror could find
that (1) the stack base was not an open and obvious danger that a reasonable shopper exercising
reasonable care would have been aware of and (2) that the partially empty stack base here posed
an unreasonable risk of harm. Conversely, a rational juror could find that a reasonable shopper in
Plaintiff’s position “exercising ordinary perception, intelligence and judgment” would have
perceived and avoided the risk posed by the partially empty stack base. See Gregory v. Kmart
Corp., 2007 WL 3408018, at *2 (D. Or. Nov. 15, 2007). There is no indication that Plaintiff was
distracted at the moment in question. Rather, Plaintiff followed her partner on the left-hand side
of the aisle, did not see the empty portion of the stack base at ground level with no product on it,
and caught her foot on the corner as she turned. Hansen Decl. Ex. 1, 2-3; ECF No. 33-1. A jury
must resolve the main dispute at issue; i.e., whether a shopper exercising reasonably care would
see (and avoid) the empty stack base sticking 5.5 inches off the ground and extending a foot or so
into the walkway. And while Plaintiff testified that had she seen the stack base, she would have
avoided it, that is the case with every slip and fall case and does not necessarily mean that the stack
3 –OPINION & ORDER
base was an open and obvious danger or that Plaintiff was not exercising reasonable care. Here,
the jury could find that the empty portion of the stack base protruded into the walkway enough for
Plaintiff to trip over, but not enough to see while turning left into a walkway approached from the
left side of the aisle.
This case differs from Fast v. Coastal Journeys Unlimited, 2016 WL 7331557 (D. Or. Dec.
16, 2016 Opinion), where the Court concluded a “wheel stop” located in a parking lot was not an
unreasonably dangerous condition. There, the Court concluded that “[a] reasonable person . . .
could reasonably expect to encounter conditions normally found in a parking lot, to include wheel
stops.” Id. at *5. In contrast, one could conclude that a reasonable shopper would not expect to
find a 5.5-inch-high piece of plastic extending into the walkway past the point where the product
is stacked. In other words, a reasonable shopper could conclude that the walkway begins where
the product ends. Walmart will of course get to argue that due to the lighting and the contrast of
the black base against the white floor, a reasonably cautious shopper would have seen and avoided
the stack base.4 The jury will resolve those questions.
CONCLUSION
Walmart’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 17, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of May, 2021.
______/s/ Michael J. McShane__
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
4
In fact, based on the pictures in the record, it appears that the emptier the stack base was, the more difficult it will
be for Plaintiff to demonstrate she exercised reasonable care and was not in fact distracted while turning the corner.
But the parties dispute how empty the stack base was at the time of the incident, and no evidence demonstrates
Plaintiff was distracted while turning the corner.
4 –OPINION & ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?