KELLY v. BEAUTY SYSTEMS GROUP, LLC, 1:17-cv-07480

Background

Plaintiff D'yani Kelly tripped on a black entrance/exit floor mat in a Cosmo Prof store on August 13, 2015; her left foot caught the mat but she did not fall inside the store.
After exiting, Plaintiff walked toward her car in the shopping-center parking lot, her ankle then "gave out," and she fell, injuring her knee, hands, and shoulder.
Plaintiff's daughter was the only eyewitness to the trip; store employees inspected the mat only after the incident and described a small "pull" or slight curled corner (about a half-inch).
Cosmo Prof had no formal mat-inspection procedure (employees vacuumed nightly); no prior complaints or reports about the mat were recorded during employees' multi-year tenures.
There was a pothole in the parking lot near where Plaintiff fell, but Plaintiff and her witnesses testified she walked around the pothole and that her ankle "gave out" before reaching the car.
Procedural posture: Cosmo Prof moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim; Cosmo Prof also filed a third-party complaint against the shopping-center owners (Jay Birnbaum-Cherry Hill, LLC and ILF-Cherry Hill, LLC). The Court granted summary judgment for Cosmo Prof and for the third-party defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the store mat constituted a dangerous condition and whether Cosmo Prof had notice	The mat had a curled/buckled corner; nightly vacuuming could have caused it and gave employees the opportunity to discover it, so Cosmo Prof is liable	The alleged defect was minor, observed only after the incident; no evidence the mat was hazardous or that Cosmo Prof created or had notice of the condition	Granted for Cosmo Prof — plaintiff failed to show the mat was a dangerous condition or that Cosmo Prof had actual or constructive notice; conjecture insufficient
Whether third-party defendants (parking-lot owners) are liable for a pothole that caused Plaintiff's fall	The shopping-center pothole allegedly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s fall after she exited the store	Witnesses (Plaintiff, daughter) testified Plaintiff walked around the pothole and that her ankle gave out; store employee did not see the fall and only noted Plaintiff was near the pothole	Granted for third-party defendants — record shows the pothole did not cause the fall and Plaintiff did not allege a parking-lot defect caused her injury

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment: movant's initial burden and nonmovant must show genuine issue)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue exists only if reasonable jury could return verdict for nonmovant)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (court must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Pearson v. Component Tech. Corp., 247 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2001) (summary judgment standard in Third Circuit)
Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358 (3d Cir. 1992) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
Weinberg v. Dinger, 524 A.2d 366 (N.J. 1987) (elements of negligence)
Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown, 471 A.2d 25 (N.J. 1984) (proprietor not liable absent actual or constructive notice)
Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 625 A.2d 1110 (N.J. 1993) (invitee status and proprietor duties)
Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 818 A.2d 314 (N.J. 2003) (business-owner duty to discover and eliminate dangerous conditions)
Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 85 A.3d 1015 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014) (need for evidence on creation/duration of defect to infer notice)
Larkin v. Super Fresh Food Markets, Inc., [citation="291 F. App'x 483"] (3d Cir. 2008) (without evidence of when mat buckled, constructive notice cannot be inferred)
Rivera v. Columbus Cadet Corps of Am., 158 A.2d 62 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960) (negligence not presumed from occurrence of accident)
Long v. Landy, 171 A.2d 1 (1961) (inference of negligence must be drawn from proved facts, not speculation)