Janice Hochstetler v. Menards
688 F. App'x 381
6th Cir.2017Background
- Janice Hochstetler was struck from behind by a 12-foot roll of carpet remnant that fell from a storage bay at a Menards store in Massillon, Ohio.
- The Hochstetlers were shopping for carpet padding stored on shelving above the remnant bay; Janice was standing with her back to the bay when the roll fell.
- Menards employee Ryan Savage assisted the Hochstetlers and testified that all carpet remnants were inside the storage bay when he finished helping them 3–5 minutes before the accident.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence (Janice for personal injuries; Jeff for loss of consortium); Menards removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
- At summary judgment, plaintiffs relied on constructive notice (that the hazard existed long enough for Menards to discover it); no evidence showed how long the roll was unsecured.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Menards; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding plaintiffs offered only speculation about the duration of the hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Menards breached duty of ordinary care to business invitee | Hochstetler: Menards had constructive notice because the roll must have been unsecured for at least 20–30 minutes while they were in the area | Menards: No evidence the roll was unsecured when employee left; no actual or constructive notice shown | Court: No breach—plaintiffs failed to show how long the hazard existed, so no constructive notice |
| Whether plaintiffs produced evidence creating genuine issue for trial | Hochstetler: Their presence in area for 20–30 minutes and lack of seeing anyone create the hazard supports inference the hazard existed that long | Menards: Employee testimony (unrebutted) places remnants inside bay minutes before accident; plaintiffs’ speculation insufficient | Court: Plaintiffs’ speculation insufficient; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether credibility disputes preclude summary judgment | Hochstetler: Argues employee testimony is not credible | Menards: Relies on employee testimony and lack of contrary evidence | Court: Credibility determinations not for summary judgment; cannot rely on mere disbelief to create fact issue |
| Whether Ohio law permits inference of negligence without evidence of hazard duration | Hochstetler: Suggests jury can infer duration from circumstances | Menards: Ohio precedent requires evidence of how long hazard existed to infer constructive notice | Court: Follows Ohio law—duration evidence is mandatory; speculation cannot create jury inference |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudisill v. Ford Motor Co., 709 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 480 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1985) (shopkeeper duty to business invitees is ordinary care, not insurer)
- Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for business-invitee recovery under Ohio law)
- Combs v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (constructive-notice framework requiring duration evidence)
- Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 993 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (absence of evidence about hazard duration defeats constructive-notice claim)
- Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 116 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1953) (probative inference cannot be based on guess or speculation)
- FDIC v. Jeff Miller Stables, 573 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2009) (credibility determinations inappropriate on summary judgment)