Potvin v. Speedway LLC
891 F.3d 410
1st Cir.2018Background
- On Jan. 20, 2012, Potvin fell at a self-service gas station after her shoe heel caught in a concrete groove while she was walking backward looking for a squeegee.
- The grooves were positive limiting barriers (PLBs) required by Massachusetts regulation; each groove met the statutory dimensions.
- Potvin sued the station owner (originally Hess; Speedway later assumed liability and was substituted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(c)).
- District court granted summary judgment for Speedway, holding PLBs were an open-and-obvious condition and no duty to warn existed.
- Potvin appealed, arguing (1) PLBs were dangerous despite being open and obvious and (2) the owner had duties to warn, to remediate, and to anticipate distracted customers; she also challenged substitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn of PLBs | PLBs posed a dangerous condition and Speedway had a duty to warn despite visibility | PLBs were open and obvious; open-and-obvious doctrine relieves duty to warn | Held for Speedway: no duty to warn because PLBs were open and obvious |
| Duty to remediate open-and-obvious danger | Owner should have remedied the hazard (e.g., paint, signs) | Open-and-obvious danger generally need not be remedied; no uncommon or unreasonably unsafe feature shown | Held for Speedway: no duty to remedy; plaintiff failed to show exception (heightened anticipation or unique hazard) or feasible remedy |
| Anticipation of distracted customers (new theory) | Owner should have anticipated distractions and taken extra precautions | Theory was not raised below; not preserved for appeal | Held for Speedway: issue forfeited on appeal; also poor vehicle factually |
| Substitution under Rule 25(c) | Substitution prejudiced plaintiff / improper | Speedway assumed Hess’s liabilities; substitution facilitated litigation; no prejudice shown | Held for Speedway: substitution affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426 (party substitution does not defeat jurisdiction)
- Geshke v. Crocs, Inc., 740 F.3d 74 (Mass. negligence elements)
- Cracchiolo v. E. Fisheries, Inc., 740 F.3d 64 (duty/breach typically for factfinder)
- O'Sullivan v. Shaw, 726 N.E.2d 951 (Mass. duty standards; open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Dos Santos v. Coleta, 987 N.E.2d 1187 (narrow exception where open-and-obvious dangers may still require remediation)
- Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 930 N.E.2d 142 (open-and-obvious nature can suffice as warning)
- Gorfinkle v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 431 F.3d 19 (applying Mass. open-and-obvious principles)
- Lyon v. Morphew, 678 N.E.2d 1306 (limitations on landowner duty)