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

• Published date: 21 February 2022
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence
• Law Firm: Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
• Author: Ms Joelle Nelson and Kathryn Bonorchis

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...