Humphrey v. Wal Mart Stores Inc, 2:12-cv-01786

Plaintiff (Rosie Humphrey) slipped and fell in the Garden Center of an Irondale Wal‑Mart on July 14, 2011; she was using a push cart, wearing flip‑flops, and did not look at the floor before the fall.
After falling, Plaintiff observed water on the floor (described as about 38" by 10", with footprints) and believed it flowed from a nearby cooler; she could see the water clearly once seated and testified she could have seen it from 10–15 feet if she had looked down.
Several Wal‑Mart employees who arrived after the fall testified they saw no water around the scene and stated associates continuously monitor the sales floor.
Plaintiff alleged negligence and wantonness against Wal‑Mart, arguing employees were responsible for the spilled water and Wal‑Mart failed to clean it up.
Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of notice and that any spill was open and obvious; the court considered evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff for the notice question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wal‑Mart had notice of the water on the floor	Employees caused/handled bottles from the cooler and thus Wal‑Mart had constructive/actual notice of the spill	No evidence of notice; employees did not see water	Denied as to notice — genuine dispute for jury (evidence could support constructive notice)
Whether the spill was an open and obvious hazard that negates duty	Spill was present but Plaintiff did not look; she would have avoided it if she saw it	Spill was large, visible from 10–15 feet, so open and obvious as a matter of law	Not resolved on summary judgment — factual credibility questions for jury
Whether Plaintiff is contributorily negligent or assumed risk by not looking and wearing flip‑flops	Plaintiff admits she didn’t look but disputes responsibility for spill	Argues her failure to look and footwear support contributory negligence	Treated as factual question for jury; not decided on summary judgment
Whether Wal‑Mart acted wantonly (higher culpability than negligence)	Plaintiff suggests employees created/should have known of hazard	No evidence employees knew of hazard or consciously disregarded it	Granted in favor of Wal‑Mart — wantonness claim dismissed (no evidence of conscious disregard)

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine‑issue/jury standard on summary judgment)
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir.) (resolving inferences for nonmovant)
Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Laxson, 655 So.2d 943 (Ala. 1994) (elements of premises‑liability negligence)
Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Hall, 890 So.2d 98 (Ala. 2003) (storekeeper duty and not an insurer of customer safety)
Williams v. Bruno's, Inc., 632 So.2d 19 (Ala. 1993) (contributory negligence and jury issues)
Ex parte Essary, 992 So.2d 5 (Ala. 2007) (distinguishing wantonness from negligence)