Summary judgment in favor of a defendant seems like a rare feat even where the defendant may have acted as a “reasonably prudent” person.  Thus, even in cases where defendants warned plaintiff of a danger, and were in the process of remedying a defect, we rarely see summary judgment granted.  Instead, courts often find a “question of fact,” and leave it for a jury to decide the issue.  Not so in Dequinziov. Gristedes Food, Inc.

In Dequinzio, a store manager notified the stock clerk about a laundry detergent spill in one of the aisles.  The clerk placed two wet floor signs around the area of the spill, and went to retrieve a mop.  In between the time the clerk placed the signs and returned with a mop, the plaintiff slipped and fell.  The clerk testified that only two minutes passed between becoming aware of the spill, placing wet floor signs and returning with a mop.  The plaintiff testified that he was on the ground “maybe five minutes” before the manager and another employee came to see him.  Thus plaintiff tried to create an issue of fact regarding whether it was two or five minutes between the placement of the sign and his accident.  Defendants argued that whether it took two minutes or five minutes for the clerk to return with a mop after placing the wet floor signs, the defendants’ actions were reasonable.  The court agreed with the defendants, and found that they did not have a reasonable opportunity to remedy the hazard.

The lesson here is that parties will try to defeat a summary judgment motion with any question of fact.  However, where the question of fact does not matter (i.e. two minutes versus five minutes), the key may be conceding the plaintiff’s version (“for purposes of the motion”), and dispelling with any “questions of fact” that may allow for the success of the summary judgment motion.

Please contact "> for any questions about this post.

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202658922106/Dequinzio-v.-Gristedes-Food,-Inc.,-10065710