Camille Sedar v. Reston Town Center Property
988 F.3d 756
4th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Camille Sedar fell headfirst onto the sidewalk after traversing a short pedestrian route from a parking garage landing to a five-step exterior stair, suffering serious injuries (concussion, fractured elbow, facial lacerations).
- Sedar has no memory of the fall; accompanying colleagues trailed several steps behind and did not see the precise cause but placed her path over loose bricks at the top of the stairs.
- Photos and video taken after the fall show uneven/loose bricks and sagging caulk creating a lip at the landing; Sedar’s shoe had a fresh scuff after the incident.
- Sedar’s structural-engineering expert opined the loose bricks/deteriorated caulk created a trip hazard that likely caused her to lose balance and fall; he also opined the defect developed over months.
- Defendants (property owner/manager and contracted security) moved for summary judgment arguing no dangerous condition, no actual or constructive notice, and insufficient evidence of causation; the district court granted summary judgment.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the record presents genuine issues of material fact on dangerousness, notice, and causation that must be resolved by a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a dangerous condition | Loose/unstable bricks and sagging caulk at top of stairs created a trip hazard (photos, video, eyewitnesses, expert) | Condition is an insignificant sidewalk irregularity not rising to a dangerous condition | Reversed: sufficient evidence (photos, video, testimony, expert) to create a jury question |
| Notice (actual or constructive) | Constructive notice: defect visible and existed for months; expert says deterioration would be observable in routine inspections | No actual notice; security witness’s testimony concerned layout/transition, not loose bricks | Reversed: reasonable jury could find constructive notice; actual notice record insufficient |
| Causation | Circumstantial evidence (witness placement over loose bricks, photos aligned with bloodstain, shoe scuff, expert opinion, immediate witness conduct) supports inference she tripped on the hazard | No direct proof she stepped on a specific brick; other plausible explanations (missed step, sunlight, layout) | Reversed: circumstantial evidence suffices to create a genuine dispute for the jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (requirement that nonmoving party produce evidence from which a jury could find for it)
- Fultz v. Delhaize Am., Inc., 677 S.E.2d 272 (Va. 2009) (invitee duty and open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Med. Ctr. Hosp. v. Sharpless, 331 S.E.2d 405 (Va. 1985) (small sidewalk irregularities may not be hazardous)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. Sanders, 349 S.E.2d 101 (Va. 1986) (notice requirement for property possessor)
- Grim v. Rahe, Inc., 434 S.E.2d 888 (Va. 1993) (constructive notice via defect existing long enough to be discovered)
- Hodge v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 360 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show why and how the accident happened; no recovery for pure speculation)
- Penley v. McDowell Cty. Bd. of Educ., 876 F.3d 646 (4th Cir. 2017) (causal facts in dispute preclude summary judgment)
- Miracle Mart, Inc. v. Webb, 137 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 1964) (defect existed long enough to charge possessor with notice)
- United States v. Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168 (4th Cir. 1989) (circumstantial evidence is treated the same as direct evidence)