Lionel v. Target Corp., 44 F. Supp. 3d 315

Plaintiff Jacqueline Lionel filed a negligence action in NY Supreme Court; Target removed to federal court on diversity grounds and court granted summary judgment for Target.
Incident occurred July 14, 2010, at Target, 2201 Nostrand Ave., Brooklyn; plaintiff exited an escalator into a hallway near carts and merchandise.
Plaintiff slipped on a lid from a food container; nearby wet paper towels suggested a spill; plaintiff did not see the lid before the slip.
Target employees regularly patrol the area; a Guest Incident Report indicated the floor was clean and dry and listed the cause as unknown; an unsigned LOD Investigation Report could not determine the source of the condition.
Plaintiff received medical treatment including ambulance transport, knee X-rays, and physical therapy; long-term surgery for nerve damage and knee issues contemplated in 2012.
Court granted Target’s summary judgment, applying NY law in a diversity case; plaintiff’s theories about creation or constructive notice of the hazard were not supported by evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Target had constructive notice of the lid on the floor	Lionel argues evidence shows area regularly traversed by employees and time to observe.	Target contends no evidence shows how long lid was present or that employees observed it.	No genuine dispute; insufficient evidence of time for constructive notice.
Whether Target created the dangerous condition	Wet towel and lid near cleaning area suggest cleanup left hazard.	No admissible evidence that employees created the condition.	Insufficient evidence to prove creation of the hazard.
Whether the lid was visible and apparent to Target employees	Object was visible; plaintiff saw after the fall.	Visibility does not prove notice or breach.	Object was visible and apparent.
Whether plaintiff can establish the time-frame for the hazard existed before the accident	Time to observe/clean spill implies constructive notice.	No evidence of duration; could have been momentary.	No time-frame shown; constructiveness not shown.

Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 N.Y.2d 836 (NY 1986) (actual or constructive notice theory in slip-and-fall cases)
Kelsey v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 383 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976) (heightened duty of premises operators; presence of attendant supports constructive notice)
Restey v. Victory Markets, Inc., 512 N.Y.S.2d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987) (time-frame evidence supports constructive notice when hazard observed over time)
Castellanos v. Target Dept. Stores, Inc., 201 N.Y.S.3d 4017166 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (summary judgment considerations on visibility and notice (as cited))
Antonelli v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 216 F.3d 1071 (2d Cir. 2000) (constructive notice standard; visible defect must exist long enough to remedy)