184 Conn. App. 619
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Rebecca Bisson slipped on a puddle of clear water in a Wal‑Mart main aisle on Feb. 12, 2013 and sued for premises‑liability negligence.
- Bisson alleged Wal‑Mart negligently failed to create, inspect for, warn of, or remedy the dangerous condition.
- Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment, relying on employee Jennifer Card’s affidavit and deposition and store surveillance video showing Card had conducted a safety sweep of that spot about 40 seconds before the fall and observed no water.
- Card’s affidavit and the video placed a maximum 40–42 second window between her sweep and the fall; Bisson argued contradictions in Card’s testimony and that snow outside increased Wal‑Mart’s duty.
- The trial court watched the video, concluded the defect existed for under a minute and granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive notice — duration required | Card’s deposition contradictions and video create a disputed factual issue about how long water was present | Card’s affidavit + video show at most ~40 seconds between sweep and fall, too short for constructive notice | Wal‑Mart met its initial burden; 40 seconds insufficient to impute constructive notice; summary judgment affirmed |
| Credibility of Card’s testimony | Card’s varying references to 5/10 minutes vs 40 seconds create factual dispute for jury | When read as a whole and compared to video, Card consistently places sweep ≈40 seconds before fall | Court rejects plaintiff’s cherry‑picked inconsistencies; no genuine dispute |
| Surveillance video proof | Video shows Card didn’t look at floor, so her claim of seeing no water is suspect | Video confirms timing (≈40–42 sec) and does not reliably show direction of gaze due to quality and crowding | Video corroborates timing; plaintiff’s gaze‑based inference is speculative and insufficient |
| Heightened duty due to snow | Snow made hazard foreseeable and increased Wal‑Mart’s duty to inspect/clean (argument raised on appeal) | No adequate developed briefing or record on an enhanced duty | Issue inadequately briefed; not reviewed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hellamns v. Yale‑New Haven Hosp., 147 Conn. App. 405 (Conn. App. 2013) (a defect existing only seconds before an accident is insufficient to establish constructive notice)
- White v. E & F Constr. Co., 151 Conn. 110 (Conn. 1963) (a short interval between appearance of wet condition and accident did not support constructive‑notice finding)
- Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768 (Conn. 2007) (plaintiff must prove actual or constructive notice of the specific unsafe condition)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (when a videotape in the record blatantly contradicts a party’s version of events, the court may view the facts as depicted on the video for summary judgment purposes)