Darrell Littleton v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, 21-5033

Background

Plaintiff Darrell Littleton, a frequent Lowe's customer, felt a heavy object strike his head and hand while looking at his phone in the lumber aisle; he saw two stair stringers on the floor afterward.
The stringers were displayed on a customer-accessible metal shelf with dividers, a bottom kickplate, and a slim cable run across the front to prevent products from falling when handled.
Littleton alleged Lowe's overstocked and improperly secured the stringers and that falling boards flipped the cable, creating a "hammering leverage" that struck him.
He reported the incident to store staff (received a bandage), later completed an incident report, and sued for negligence in state court; Lowe's removed the case to federal court.
After discovery (Littleton presented no liability expert), the district court granted summary judgment for Lowe's, concluding there was no evidence the display posed an unreasonable risk and crediting Lowe's expert.
On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding Littleton failed to produce evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition sufficient to avoid summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Lanier burden-shifting	Lanier's burden-shifting should apply to falling-merchandise incidents, shifting burden to Lowe's once Littleton shows injury from a dangerous condition	Lowe's contends Lanier is limited to slip-and-fall cases and not proper for falling-merchandise; court need not decide scope because plaintiff failed even to meet Lanier's threshold	Even assuming Lanier applies, Littleton failed to show a disputed dangerous condition, so burden-shifting would not help him; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the display was unreasonably dangerous (cable/positioning)	The low, lax cable contributed to the hazard and should have been moved higher per employee comment	Lowe's expert: the cable is designed only to prevent items falling when handled and serves no purpose otherwise; plaintiff produced no contrary evidence	No genuine dispute that the cable's position made the display unreasonably dangerous; unrebutted expert testimony supported summary judgment
Whether the display was overstocked (kickplate issue)	Overstocking caused stringers to tip out of the kickplate and fall onto Littleton	Lowe's showed the kickplate was present and effective; overstocking means product outside the kickplate and plaintiff produced no evidence that occurred	Plaintiff offered only speculation (board hit him) and no evidence that products were outside or kickplate missing; summary judgment proper
Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to reach a jury	Circumstantial evidence that a board struck him warrants a jury determination on dangerousness	Defendant: circumstantial evidence insufficient; stores aren’t strictly liable; plaintiff must present evidence of unsafe condition, not speculation	Speculation without material evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition cannot defeat summary judgment; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 431 (Ky. 2003) (adopted burden-shifting framework for certain premises-safety claims)
Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 6 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. 1999) (concurring opinion outlining elements to trigger Lanier burden-shifting)
Bartley v. Educational Training Sys., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 612 (Ky. 2004) (Lanier applied beyond self-service slip scenarios)
Martin v. Mekanhart Corp., 113 S.W.3d 95 (Ky. 2003) (describing Lanier's scope as covering encounters with foreign substances or other dangerous conditions)
Brewster v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 279 S.W.3d 142 (Ky. 2009) (discussion of Lanier's scope and limitations)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (standard for drawing inferences at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (nonmoving party must present evidence on which a jury could reasonably find in its favor)
Kessler v. Visteon Corp., 448 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2006) (nonmoving party must present material evidence to avoid summary judgment)