Irak v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, 2:10-cv-00241

Irak, an invitee at Wal-Mart Merrillville, tripped when her foot wedged under a bent bottom bar of a cart corral in the parking lot.
Irak had knee replacement in Oct 2007 and was cautious about knee disruption or movement after surgery.
Wal-Mart did not know the bar was bent; Store Manager Gloden had not previously observed such a bend and could not explain its bowing.
Assistant manager Retheford photographed the corral condition; Gonzalez witnessed the fall and noted Irak did not look down while walking.
Weather was sunny; incident occurred around 4:00–5:00 p.m.; no prior complaints or known frequent issues with the cart corrals were established.
Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment arguing lack of actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition; the court granted the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there actual or constructive notice of the bent bar?	Irak argues the condition was known or recurrent, giving notice.	Wal-Mart asserts no employee observed the bent bar prior to the fall and no evidence of notice.	No notice established; no constructive notice.
Is summary judgment proper on premises-liability claim given notice issue?	Constructive notice can be inferred from recurrent/dangerous condition.	Lack of notice defeats the premises-liability claim; no genuine issue of material fact.	Summary judgment granted for Wal-Mart.

Hetzel v. Jewel Cos., 457 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1972) (constructive notice for known/recurring conditions)
F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Moore, 48 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. 1943) (duty to inspect based on existence of defective condition)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (materials sufficient for summary judgment; burden of proof on movant)
Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278 (7th Cir. 2003) (properly construed facts in favor of nonmovant on summary judgment)
Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2010) (marshal evidence; not mere pleadings)