Hannah Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc., 842 F.3d 1035

On April 14, 2012, Hannah Piotrowski slipped on one or two small oval rocks in the parking lot outside a Menard store and suffered serious elbow injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
The rocks were located near the store entrance/vehicle drop-off; a concrete planter filled with decorative "river rock" sat 50–125 feet away and was periodically replenished by store staff.
Menard sold similar decorative rock in 40–50 lb bags in its garden center; employees and customers had access to the planter area and children were sometimes observed playing in it.
Menard’s general manager and other employees conducted regular, daily inspections of the entire store and parking lot; there was no evidence of prior complaints or other incidents involving loose rock on the pavement.
Piotrowski sued for negligence (and her husband for loss of consortium). The district court granted Menard summary judgment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rocks were placed in the lot by Menard’s negligence (causation)	Rocks likely came from Menard’s planter or from rocks Menard sold; thus Menard caused the hazard	No direct or circumstantial evidence showing Menard or its employees, rather than third parties, placed the rocks where plaintiff fell	Plaintiff’s theory is speculative; insufficient to show defendant more likely than a third party caused placement → for defendant
Whether Menard had actual or constructive notice of the rocks	Menard knew rock escaped the planter because it refilled the planter, so it should have known rocks were escaping onto walkways	No evidence the specific rocks had been present for any length of time, no complaints, and no pattern of recurring incidents; employees inspected frequently	No actual or constructive notice proven; inspections and lack of recurring incidents defeat notice theory → for defendant
Whether a permanent condition created by Menard removes the notice requirement	Plaintiff contends a dangerous condition created/maintained by the store obviates need to prove notice	No evidence that Menard actually created a permanent dangerous condition or that employees caused the two rocks to be on the pavement	No showing that defendant created the hazardous condition more likely than third parties; notice exception inapplicable → for defendant

Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 770 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff must present some direct or circumstantial evidence that business, not a third party, caused a foreign substance)
Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 N.E.2d 324 (Ill. 1990) (speculation/conjecture insufficient to impose negligence liability)
Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 862 F.2d 119 (7th Cir. 1988) (constructive notice can be shown by pattern/recurring incidents or long-present condition)
Ciciora v. CCAA, Inc., 581 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2009) (speculation cannot defeat summary judgment)
Ward v. Kmart Corp., 554 N.E.2d 223 (Ill. 1990) (a defendant’s notice of an open, obvious condition is a factor but not determinative)