Kristen Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20512
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- On June 15, 2010, Zuppardi slipped on a clear, odorless puddle in a Wal‑Mart "action alley" and was injured; there were no warning signs, tracks, or nearby spilled containers.
- The fall occurred near employee doors and away from store displays; no customers or employees were in the immediate area before or at the time of the fall.
- Wal‑Mart produced five photos and a claim report but could not locate an incident investigation file or relevant surveillance footage.
- Wal‑Mart had internal "clean‑as‑you‑go" policies requiring employees to monitor action alleys, but the store was not busy at the time and no evidence showed continuous patrolling.
- District court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart, finding no evidence that Wal‑Mart caused the puddle or had actual or constructive notice; Zuppardi appealed both that decision and certain discovery/procedure rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to strike Wal‑Mart's reply and permitting a declaration | Zuppardi argued Wal‑Mart filed the declaration in bad faith and violated C.D. Ill. Local Rule 7.1 by adding explanatory material in its reply | Wal‑Mart said the reply clarified undisputed facts and complied with the local rule; district court interpretation of its rule was discretionary | Denial affirmed — no bad faith and district court reasonably construed and applied the local rule |
| Whether district court abused discretion by deeming Wal‑Mart’s facts admitted under Local Rule 7.1 | Zuppardi claimed facts were improperly deemed admitted | Wal‑Mart argued Zuppardi failed to respond in the required numbered format, allowing admissions under the rule | Affirmed — Zuppardi waived argument and district court permissibly enforced the local rule |
| Whether Wal‑Mart caused or placed the puddle (liability without notice) | Zuppardi asserted circumstantial evidence (product sold by Wal‑Mart, restocking nearby) supports inference Wal‑Mart caused spill | Wal‑Mart argued plaintiff produced only speculation and no evidence tying employees to the spill | Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff failed to present direct or circumstantial evidence that Wal‑Mart placed the substance |
| Whether Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive notice of the puddle | Zuppardi argued constructive notice because the puddle existed long enough and store policies required monitoring | Wal‑Mart argued no evidence of how long puddle existed, store was not busy, and policies do not change legal standard | Summary judgment affirmed — no evidence of actual notice or sufficient time to impute constructive notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Herzog v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., 742 F.3d 802 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for motion to strike/summary judgment denials)
- Bunn v. Khoury Enters., 753 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.) (deference to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules)
- Reid v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., 545 F.3d 479 (7th Cir.) (constructive‑notice requirements in slip‑and‑fall cases)
- Peterson v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 241 F.3d 603 (7th Cir.) (businesses not required to continuously patrol aisles; constructive‑notice analysis)
- Donoho v. O’Connell’s, Inc., 13 Ill.2d 113 (Ill.) (evidence required to infer proprietor placed a foreign substance)
- Roger Whitmore’s Auto. Servs., Inc. v. Lake Cnty., 424 F.3d 659 (7th Cir.) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)