McDavid v. Aldi, Inc., 2:16-cv-02699

Plaintiff Linda McDavid slipped and fell in an ALDI store on July 14, 2015 after backing away from a freezer door and striking a center-aisle display of stacked boxes on a wooden pallet; she fell and alleges resulting injuries.
The aisle was about 8.5 feet wide overall but narrowed to roughly 3 feet of clearance at the freezer because of the center-aisle display; freezer doors extended ~2 feet into the aisle.
McDavid testified she saw the display before using the freezer but was distracted by merchandise while reaching into the freezer and then backed into the display, stating she “just didn’t pay attention.”
ALDI produced store video, no history of similar accidents at that store in the prior five years (one unrelated 2013 incident), and argued the display was open and obvious.
Procedural posture: ALDI moved for summary judgment arguing (1) no legal duty to protect against an open-and-obvious display and (2) McDavid was at least 50% at fault; the court denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALDI owed a duty to protect customers from the center-aisle display	McDavid: store should anticipate distraction by merchandise; foreseeable risk despite display being open-and-obvious	ALDI: display was in plain sight; no duty to protect against an obvious obstruction	Court: duty exists for jury to decide because foreseeability and gravity of harm (given distraction and narrow clearance) outweighed burden to avoid harm; summary judgment denied
Whether McDavid’s comparative fault bars recovery (≥50% fault)	McDavid: evidence supports that distraction by merchandise could make her <50% at fault; comparative fault is for the jury	ALDI: McDavid admitted noticing the display and faulting her lack of attention; reasonable minds could only find ≥50% fault	Court: disputed facts permit jury to allocate fault; summary judgment denied

Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865 (Tenn. 1993) (elements of negligence and duty analysis)
Rice v. Sabir, 979 S.W.2d 305 (Tenn. 1998) (premises owner duty to remove or warn of latent or hidden dangers and role of owner’s superior knowledge)
Coln v. City of Savannah, 966 S.W.2d 34 (Tenn. 1998) (open-and-obvious danger: consider whether invitee’s attention may be distracted; foreseeability can create duty)
McCall v. Wilder, 913 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1995) (risk unreasonable when foreseeable probability and gravity of harm outweigh burden of prevention)
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (Tennessee comparative-fault framework)
Green v. Roberts, 398 S.W.3d 172 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (summary judgment can be appropriate where plaintiff’s fault is necessarily ≥50%)
EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2015) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)