Klock v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 8:21-cv-02542

Plaintiff Leslie Klock slipped and fell on a liquid in a Walmart store in Maryland in August 2018, sustaining minor injuries.
Klock alleged negligence and respondeat superior, claiming the liquid was either from a ceiling/roof leak (due to improper maintenance) or a spilled drink, and that Walmart failed in its duty to maintain safe premises.
After discovery, Walmart moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence of actual or constructive notice of the hazard.
Plaintiff could not confirm the source or duration of the liquid and saw no leak or personnel in the area at the time of the fall.
Evidence showed no history of leaks in the grocery/freezer section where the fall occurred; hearsay statements and subsequent conditions (11 days later) were presented but not found probative.
The court considered both parties’ arguments and evidence, ultimately deciding the motion without a hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Plaintiff slip on leaky roof water or a spill?	Liquid likely from a ceiling leak; Defendants created danger by not maintaining roof	No evidence of active ceiling leak; liquid more likely a spilled drink	Insufficient evidence for roof leak; evidence supports drink spill
Did Defendants have actual knowledge of hazard?	Defendants knew about leaks; staff witnessed/created the hazard	No actual notice of specific hazard; no staff in area, no reports	No evidence Defendants had actual notice or created the hazard
Did Defendants have constructive knowledge?	Condition lasted long enough to notice; prior general leak issues	No time-on-floor evidence; no leaks in area; hearsay insufficient	No “time-on-floor” evidence; constructive notice not established
Did Defendants breach duty to inspect/warn?	Duty breached by lax inspection and lack of warning, given roof issues	No duty to continuously inspect; inspections were reasonable	No breach; no evidence better inspection would have prevented fall

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: must be genuine issue of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden and process for summary judgment)
Moulden v. Greenbelt Consumer Services, Inc., 239 Md. 229 (premises liability—owner not an insurer of invitees)
Maans v. Giant of Maryland, LLC, 161 Md. App. 620 (constructive notice requires “time on floor” evidence in slip-and-fall)
Lexington Market Authority v. Zappala, 233 Md. 444 (duty to inspect not continuous; periodic inspections)
Henley v. Prince George’s County, 305 Md. 320 (duty of premises owner to invitees)
Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Md. Corp., 115 Md. App. 381 (duties owed to business invitees)