Wade Clark Mulcahy LLP

<p style="text-align: justify;">In<em> <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Hendershot-v.-Walmart-Inc..pdf">Hendershot v. Walmart, Inc.</a>,</em> the Pennsylvania District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed a case against Walmart because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of how long a mat was rolled up before the plaintiff tripped and fell.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In <em>Hendershot</em>, the plaintiff filed suit against Walmart after she tripped and fell on a rolled-up mat in her local Walmart store. Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not meet her burden to prove actual or constructive notice. In response, the plaintiff relied on a unique exception to the notice requirement where “if the harmful transitory condition is traceable to the possessor or his agent’s acts, (that is, a condition created by the possessor or those under his authority), then the plaintiff need not prove any notice in order to hold the possessor accountable.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The court, however, found that the exception did not apply, reasoning there was no evidence that Walmart actually caused the rolled up mat. Thus, there was no actual notice. The court also found no constructive notice as plaintiff failed to show a recurring condition nor that the rolled up mat had been present for any amount of time before she fell. Plaintiff’s speculative claims were dismissed</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to John Lang for his contribution to this post. Should you have any questions, please contact <a href="mailto:tbracken@wcmlaw.com">Tom Bracken</a>.</p>