Barton Gilman secured a significant defense victory on behalf of its client, a large retail establishment, by obtaining summary judgment in federal court in a premises liability action arising from an alleged slip-and-fall incident at the client’s retail establishment. Til Dallavalle and Stephanie Davis of the firm’s new Jersey office secured the win.
The case stemmed from a March 14, 2021, incident in which the plaintiff alleged she tripped over an orange safety cone near the front of the store after the cone had allegedly fallen onto its side. The plaintiff claimed the tipped-over caution cone constituted a dangerous condition that caused her injuries.
A key component of the defense strategy was successfully challenging the admissibility of the plaintiff's liability expert. The Barton Gilman team argued that the expert's opinions were inadmissible as a net opinion because they were based on speculation rather than a proper factual foundation. Specifically, the expert opined that the cone created a hazardous condition simply because it was lying on its side but failed to identify any applicable industry standards or provide factual support beyond conclusory assertions.
The federal court agreed, ruling that the expert's opinions lacked the necessary factual and methodological foundation and were therefore inadmissible. Without competent expert testimony, the plaintiff could not establish that the retail store had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of our client.
In addition to securing dismissal of the case, the decision provides valuable precedent for future premises liability matters because the court expressly recognized that, standing alone, a 10-minute period is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding constructive notice, reinforcing an important principle for defending retail premises liability claims.
