United States: Rare Grant Of Summary Judgment Motion From Virginia Federal Court In Slip-And-Fall Case Opens Door For Defense

Roanoke, Va. (February 17, 2022) - Virginia courts are renowned for denying motions for summary judgment, at both the state and federal level. Indeed, it is difficult to prevail on a motion for summary judgment on simple liability defenses, but even more rare to secure summary judgment on an affirmative defense such as contributory negligence. In Admassu v. Speedway LLC, 1:21-cv-00581, the United States District for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) granted a motion for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case, giving hope to defense lawyers who are considering whether to file such a motion in such cases in the future.

Background

On July 21, 2018, the plaintiff, Sophia Admassu, suffered injuries when she stepped out of the rain and onto a tile floor at the entrance to a Speedway gas station in Annandale, Virginia. The record indicates that it had been raining all day, when Ms. Admassu arrived at Speedway around 7:30 p.m. Video footage revealed that Speedway had erected at least three signs advising patrons to exercise caution because the floor could be wet and further showed the plaintiff looking at her phone when she entered the store. Ms. Admassu testified at her deposition that she saw a puddle of water on the floor when she opened the door to the Speedway but did not see any warning signs. Further, she claimed to be putting her phone away when she fell.

Speedway's Arguments

In Speedway's memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, it argued that Speedway satisfied its duty of care by warning Ms. Admassu of a potentially hazardous condition. Speedway also argued that the water at the entrance of the store was an open and obvious condition, for which the plaintiff failed to act as a reasonable person under the circumstances. As its third ground for summary judgment, Speedway argued that Ms. Admassu's shoes could have been wet from being outside in the rain; therefore, she could not prove the puddle at the entrance to the store was the proximate cause of her slip and fall.

Speedway relied on two key principles of Virginia premises liability law: (1) an owner of real property owes invitees the duty to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe (Gauldin v. Virginia Winn-Dixie, Inc., 370 F.2d 167 (4th Cir. 1966)(construing Virginia law)); and (2) an owner is not an insurer of the safety of its customers (Fultz v. Delhaize Am., Inc., 278 Va. 84, 677 S.E.2d 272, 274 (2009)).

Plaintiff's Arguments

Ms. Admassu opposed Speedway's motion on the ground that Speedway breached its duty of care by failing to mop or otherwise address the puddle that had formed and been growing at the store's entrance for approximately one hour before she fell. Additionally, the plaintiff argued that Speedway should have placed warning signs outside the entrance or directly on top of the puddle. Ms. Admassu also argued that the issue of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are issues for the jury; thus, not appropriate for summary judgment.

The Court's Decision

Judge Claude M. Hilton concluded there were no material facts in dispute and granted Speedway's motion for summary judgment. In Judge Hilton's opinion, he noted that there was a clearly visible puddle that encompassed approximately half of the entrance and was located directly in front of the entrance door. He also noted that Ms. Admassu was looking at her phone, when she entered the store, and that nothing blocked her view of the warning signs that Speedway had placed inside the entrance.

Judge Hilton rejected the plaintiff's argument that Speedway had a duty to both warn and ensure it had a dry and carpeted entrance to the store, stating "there is no such requirement under Virginia law." Instead, "Virginia law permitted Defendant to remedy or warn invitees about the hazardous condition, and Defendant warned Plaintiff about the wet floor." Judge Hilton also ruled that Ms. Admassu was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law, because the puddle was an open and obvious condition, which a reasonable person would have seen and avoided. Similarly, Ms. Admassu assumed the risk of her injuries because the puddle was open and obvious, and she failed to exercise reasonable care when she walked out of the rain onto the puddle. Finally, Judge Hilton ruled that the plaintiff could not prove that Speedway proximately caused her injuries because it was equally likely that the plaintiff slipped and fell due to having wet shoes after walking into the store out of the rain.

Takeaway

This case shows at least one court's willingness to consider contributory negligence in a premises liability matter where there was an open and obvious risk of which the property owner had provided proper warning. Defense counsel can point to this decision when making a motion for summary judgment in such cases before a Virginia federal court.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.