South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
Wilson v. Wal-Mart, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-104-16, 9 pp.) (Joseph Anderson Jr., J.) 3:15-cv-01157; D.S.C.
Holding: In her deposition, plaintiff initially testified that the liquid in which she slipped and fell dripped from defendant’s meat cooler onto the floor; however, plaintiff later admitted that her only evidence as to the source of the slippery substance was the fact that it was located close to the meat cooler on the floor. Plaintiff’s assumptions and speculation are not sufficient to show that the substance leaked from the meat cooler.
Summary judgment for defendant.
Plaintiff has not presented any objective evidence to support her allegations regarding the source of the substance or the length of time that it was on the floor.
It is true that defendant’s surveillance video shows employees in the general area prior to the incident. However, this evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to charge defendant with constructive knowledge of the substance, particularly given the small size of the substance (covering approximately one inch of the floor) and its proximity to the meat cooler.
Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the foreign substance on the floor.
Motion granted.
