McClure v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Store, Inc.
1:21-cv-00334
M.D. Penn.May 23, 2023Background
- On October 18, 2019, Rodney McClure slipped and fell entering a Love’s travel stop in Middletown, PA after fueling; he does not know the precise cause of the fall.
- McClure had entered/exited the store earlier that day without issue and testified it was not raining.
- Love’s operations manager, Jeffrey Rovenolt, later wiped a black/foreign substance near the diesel entrance (away from where McClure fell); McClure did not observe that substance in the wiping cloth.
- McClure admits he has no evidence about how long any slippery substance was on the floor, whether it was present where he fell before the accident, or how long the area was slippery.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence (McClure) and loss of consortium (Swint). Love’s moved for summary judgment arguing no actual or constructive notice and no duty; the court granted summary judgment for Love’s and dismissed the derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual notice (did Love’s have direct knowledge/frequent recurrence of hazard?) | Testimony that diesel entrance more prone to oil/diesel on shoes and a few prior slips supports inference of frequent recurrence. | No evidence quantifying frequency; testimony at most shows potential, not direct knowledge of a recurring hazard. | Plaintiff failed to show actual notice; no genuine factual dispute — summary judgment for Love’s. |
| Constructive notice (could Love’s have known via reasonable inspection/duration of hazard?) | Store wasn’t inspected for ~4 hours 21 minutes before fall; Bremer factors show vulnerability to spills. | No evidence how long the slippery condition existed; absence of duration is fatal to inference of constructive notice. | Plaintiff failed to prove duration/constructive notice; summary judgment for Love’s. |
| Duty to affirmatively maintain/inspect (failure to inspect between noon–4:21 pm) | Surveillance shows no inspection in that window; Love’s should not benefit from not checking. | Love’s produced task lists showing inspections between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.; no spoliation claim; Rodriguez is distinguishable. | Rodriguez’s spoliation context is absent; failure-to-inspect claim does not create a duty when duration of hazard is unknown — summary judgment for Love’s. |
| Loss of consortium (derivative claim) | Derivative of McClure’s negligence. | If negligence dismissed, derivative claim fails. | Dismissed as derivative of the dismissed negligence claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting; movant can show absence of evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute/materiality standard at summary judgment)
- Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001) (plaintiff must present evidence on duration to infer constructive notice)
- Porro v. Century III Assocs., 846 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Super. 2004) (actual notice may be inferred where condition frequently recurs)
- Rodriguez v. Kravco Simon Co., 111 A.3d 1191 (Pa. Super. 2015) (maintenance logs/spoliation issues can preclude summary judgment)
- Brown v. Philadelphia Coll. of Osteopathic Med., 760 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. 2000) (elements of a negligence claim under Pennsylvania law)
- Lanni v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 88 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1952) (duration of hazard is critical to infer notice)
- Felix v. GMS, Zallie Holdings, Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 430 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (business owner duty to warn and constructive/actual notice analysis)