Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

In the matter of <em><a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Cashwell-v.-Stop-Shop-Supermarket-Co.-LLC.pdf">Cashwell v. Stop &amp; Shop Supermarket Co., LLC,</a> </em>2023 NY Slip Op 04358, (August 23, 2023) plaintiff brought action against the supermarket when she slipped and fell on a puddle of liquid inside the store. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and despite the fact that they were the property owner, the Court held in their favor.

The argument between the parties revolved around the creation of the condition that caused plaintiff’s fall. The location of the incident was in the freezer isle of the store. Plaintiff contended that she fell on a puddle of water. As such, and as can be logically inferred, plaintiff argued that a nearby box of frozen food had leaked and caused the puddle. However, the Second Department found this argument to be unavailing. Ultimately, Stop &amp; Shop argued that it was mere speculation by the plaintiff, and thus, she was unable to sufficiently establish the causation as to the condition.

The Second Department agreed, and affirmed the lower court's judgment, granting Stop &amp; Shop summary judgment on liability. It is important to remember that while something may make sense logically, absent sufficient grounds to support a conclusion, it is merely an inference. Inferences cannot be grounds to impose liability.

Thanks to Chris Palmieri for his assistance with this article.  Should you have any questions, please contact <a href="tbracken@wcmlaw.com">Tom Bracken</a>.