The fact that a defendant’s employee told a plaintiff that the floor where she slipped and fell was “always wet” on rainy days wasn’t enough for a federal judge to allow her case to go forward.
The South Carolina woman will not be able to continue with her slip-and-fall lawsuit after a U.S. District Court ruling that the statement wasn’t enough to prove that the company should have known about the wet floor and taken actions to clean it.
Betty Lucas arrived at the will-call office of Sysco’s in Columbia to pick up supplies for her son’s restaurant one rainy, windy morning in October 2010. When she entered the building, she stepped inside onto the linoleum floor and immediately slipped and fell. Lucas, who testified the floor where she fell was “solid water,” suffered injuries to her foot and mouth, including knocking out a tooth.
When Lucas arrived at the restaurant, a Sysco sales representative was there and observed her injuries. Lucas says the sales rep told her that he had been at the Sysco will office call earlier that morning and that the floor had been wet, and that the floor of the will-call office “was wet every time it rained.” Lucas sought payment from Sysco for her injuries, and when the company refused, brought a lawsuit in federal court in 2011.
Sysco asked the judge, Joseph Anderson, to dismiss Lucas’ claim, arguing that it didn’t know about the slippery conditions, and that Lucas couldn’t prove “constructive notice,” that is, that the floor had been wet long enough that the company should have discovered the problem and fixed it.
Lucas argued that the statement by the sales rep showed that the wet floor was a problem of a recurring nature, and that thus Sysco should have known about the potential for injuries as soon as it started to rain. Lucas cited a 1992 decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court holding a shopkeeper liable for injuries on just such a theory.
But Anderson found that the state Supreme Court had retreated from that position in later rulings, and hewed back to the traditional rule requiring slip-and-fall plaintiffs to prove a shopkeeper’s actual or constructive notice.
“The written and oral statements made [to Lucas] regarding the ‘water on the floor every time it rained’ do not establish the condition of the floor at the time Lucas fell,” Anderson wrote.
As an alternative, Lucas argued that Sysco at the very least had a duty to warn patrons that the floor was wet by placing “wet floor” signs or absorbent mats at the entrance of the store. Anderson said that if this were a case of first impression, he would have agreed with Lucas, but that the South Carolina Supreme Court has previously held that property owners have no obligation to use reasonable care to warn guests about open and obvious dangers.
As it happens, the court had ruled on another case involving a puddle of water similar to one Lucas slipped on, and found that a puddle was exactly that sort of danger. As such, Anderson found that Sysco had no duty to warn its guests about the dangers of slipping and falling on the rain.
“While the Court believes it is a sound practice to place mats on the floor of an establishment during inclement weather to avoid accidents such as this, South Carolina law does not impose such a duty,” Anderson wrote.
David Belding of Columbia represented Lucas. Brandt Horton, Duke Highfield and Victoria Anderson of Young Clement Rivers in Charleston represented Sysco.
The 10-page decision is Lucas v. Sysco Columbia LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-202-14). A full opinion digest is available online at sclawyersweekly.com.
Follow David Donovan on Twitter @SCLWDonovan