Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
42 A.3d 1273, 2012 R.I. LEXIS 64, 2012 WL 1758126 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's mere allegation that a floor was 'shiny,' without additional evidence of a foreign substance or the negligent application of polish, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of a dangerous condition in a premises liability negligence claim.
Facts:
- Maureen Habershaw was shopping at a Michaels Stores, Inc. location in Smithfield on a warm and sunny day.
- The store was properly lit and appeared clean to Habershaw.
- While placing items on the cashier's counter, Habershaw's left foot slipped out from under her, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.
- After the fall, Habershaw surveyed the area and observed that the floor was 'shiny.'
- In a subsequent deposition, Habershaw testified that she did not see any water, debris, or other slippery substances on the floor in the area where she fell.
Procedural Posture:
- Maureen Habershaw filed a negligence action against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Rhode Island Superior Court (trial court).
- The court later allowed Habershaw to amend her complaint to add a breach-of-contract claim.
- Michaels Stores, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Habershaw could not prove a dangerous condition existed.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Michaels Stores, Inc. on the negligence claim.
- Subsequently, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Michaels Stores, Inc. on the breach-of-contract claim, and final judgment was entered.
- Maureen Habershaw, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's allegation that a floor was 'shiny,' without any other evidence of a hazard, create a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of a dangerous condition sufficient to survive a defendant's motion for summary judgment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Flaherty
No. A mere allegation that a floor was shiny, standing alone, is not enough to establish that a dangerous condition existed. To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must present competent evidence of an unsafe condition of which the defendant was or should have been aware. The court reasoned that shininess is not inherently a hazardous condition, and describing a floor as such is nothing more than 'conjecture or speculation' without further proof, such as the negligent application of wax or the presence of a foreign substance. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Cutroneo v. F. W. Woolworth Co., where additional factors like wetness on a sloped ramp created a reasonable inference of danger. Because Habershaw failed to produce any evidence beyond the floor's shiny appearance, she did not raise a triable issue of fact, and the mere occurrence of her accident does not warrant an inference of negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the evidentiary standard for plaintiffs in premises liability cases, clarifying that subjective descriptions of a floor's appearance are legally insufficient on their own to prove a dangerous condition. The ruling makes it more difficult for slip-and-fall claims based on weak or speculative evidence to survive summary judgment, requiring plaintiffs to provide concrete proof of a specific physical hazard. This aligns Rhode Island's jurisprudence with the prevailing view in other states and underscores the principle that an accident alone does not presume negligence on the part of the property owner.
Unlock the full brief for Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc.