Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligenceappealsummary judgmentwill
testimonywill

Related Cases

Washington v. John T. Rhines Co., 646 A.2d 345, 63 USLW 2180
View Case »
L.A.C. v. Ward Parkway Shopping Center Co., L.P., Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2001 WL 376347
View Case »
Pasko v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, 542 S.W.3d 671
View Case »
Lee v. Luigi, Inc., 696 A.2d 1371
View Case »
Tedrick v. Community Resource Center, Inc., 235 Ill.2d 155, 920 N.E.2d 220, 336 Ill.Dec. 210
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gilmore v. Walgreen Co., 759 N.W.2d 433

Facts

Andre Gilmore visited a Walgreens store in St. Paul in October 2004 to purchase a disposable camera. After navigating through the store, he approached the customer service counter where he waited for assistance. While waiting, he tripped over an empty pallet that was left on the floor near the counter, sustaining injuries. The pallet was normally stacked with merchandise but had been left empty as employees were transitioning from Halloween to Christmas merchandise.

Gilmore went to a Walgreens store in St. Paul in October 2004 to purchase a disposable camera. After entering the store, he turned left and walked about 100 feet to the customer-service area. On his way to the counter, he observed cash registers on his right and left, stepped over some bags of candy that were strewn on the floor, and saw a display of fake pumpkins stacked about two feet high.

Issue

Did the district court err when it determined that Gilmore did not present a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether Walgreens exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm?

Did the district court err when it determined that Gilmore did not present a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether Walgreens exercised reasonable care to prevent the harm?

Rule

A storeowner has a duty of reasonable care to protect an invitee from a dangerous condition, even if the condition is open and obvious, if the storeowner should reasonably anticipate that other conditions or circumstances in the store will distract the invitee's attention from the obviously dangerous condition.

A storeowner has a duty of reasonable care to protect an invitee from a dangerous condition, notwithstanding that the condition is open and obvious, if the storeowner should reasonably anticipate that other conditions or circumstances in the store will distract the invitee's attention from the obviously dangerous condition.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Walgreens' employees should have anticipated the risk of harm to Gilmore despite the obviousness of the pallet. The evidence suggested that the employees recognized the importance of customer attention and that a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that they should have taken steps to prevent the injury. The court emphasized that the potential for distraction should factor into the reasonable-care analysis.

The evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. The evidence includes an employee's testimony that, if he would have been the person to empty the pallet, he would have 'moved the pallet so that customers wouldn't trip over it,' that he 'wouldn't want to leave it out there so it would be sitting in the middle of the store,' that moving the pallet out of the walkway was 'common sense,' and that Walgreens recognizes the commercial importance of impulse sales and sets up displays to attract the attention of customers as they are walking through the store.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Walgreens' negligence in failing to take steps to prevent the harm caused by the pallet.

We conclude that the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact. The evidence includes an employee's testimony that, if he would have been the person to empty the pallet, he would have 'moved the pallet so that customers wouldn't trip over it.'

Who won?

Andre Gilmore prevailed in the appeal because the court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Walgreens' employees should have anticipated the risk of injury and taken preventative measures.

Gilmore presented a genuine issue of material fact on the question of whether Walgreens was negligent in failing to take steps to prevent the harm caused by the pallet.

You must be