Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
993 N.E.2d 808
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Mrs. Marianne Ray tripped on a black produce crate that partially protruded from beneath a produce display at a Wal‑Mart in Marietta, Ohio and sued Wal‑Mart for negligence.
- On initial summary‑judgment proceedings the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding factual issues about whether the hazard was open and obvious; on remand Wal‑Mart again moved for summary judgment.
- Wal‑Mart relied primarily on Mrs. Ray’s deposition testimony that she did not know how long or by whom the crate was placed where she fell; Wal‑Mart argued plaintiffs had no evidence that it created the hazard or had actual/constructive knowledge of it.
- Plaintiffs argued (1) Wal‑Mart employees had control of and transported the crates and company policy required returning them to the storeroom, supporting an inference Wal‑Mart created/failed to remove the hazard, and (2) employees monitored the produce area so Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive knowledge.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart; the Fourth District affirmed, holding plaintiffs’ theories amounted to speculation, no evidence showed how long the crate sat protruding, and res ipsa loquitur did not apply in a public retail area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wal‑Mart create the hazardous condition? | The crate was owned, handled, and controlled by Wal‑Mart employees and company policy required return to storeroom — reasonable to infer Wal‑Mart left it protruding. | Mrs. Ray testified she did not know how the crate got there; plaintiffs offer only speculation, not proof connecting an employee to the placement. | No genuine issue — plaintiffs’ inference that Wal‑Mart created the hazard is speculative and insufficient for trial. |
| Did Wal‑Mart have actual knowledge of the hazard? | Produce area was monitored by employees; thus at least one employee must have seen the protruding crate. | No evidence any employee saw the crate; plaintiff’s conjecture about monitoring is not proof of actual notice. | No genuine issue — no affirmative evidence of actual notice. |
| Did Wal‑Mart have constructive knowledge (should have known)? | Regular monitoring/inspection duties mean a reasonable inspection would have revealed the crate. | Plaintiff produced no evidence showing how long the crate was in place; without duration evidence constructive notice cannot be inferred. | No genuine issue — absence of evidence about the duration of the condition defeats constructive‑notice theory. |
| Is res ipsa loquitur applicable? | Wal‑Mart had exclusive control over the crates and thus the doctrine should apply to permit inference of negligence. | The crate was in a public area accessible to customers and others; exclusive control is lacking so res ipsa does not apply. | No — multiple reasonable, nonexclusive explanations exist; res ipsa inapplicable in public retail area here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners, 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (elements of negligence).
- Perry v. Eastgreen Realty Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 51 (Ohio 1978) (premises owner duty to invitees and inspection duty).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burden shifting under Civ.R. 56).
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant need not negate opponent’s claim to obtain summary judgment).
- Jennings Buick, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 63 Ohio St.2d 167 (Ohio 1980) (res ipsa loquitur prerequisites).
- Hansen v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., (cited at appellate level) (Ohio App. — used as controlling regional precedent on res ipsa and public access) (court applied principle that public access defeats exclusive control requirement).