Barton Gilman obtained summary judgment on behalf of its client, a large retail establishment, in a slip and fall premises liability matter – an outcome that is rare in cases where the plaintiff presents liability expert testimony. Til Dallavalle and Stephanie Davis of the firm’s new Jersey office secured the win.
The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the store’s towel aisle due to an unidentified substance on the floor. The plaintiff’s expert conducted coefficient of friction testing and opined that the floor surface was unreasonably slippery, even when dry.
The Barton Gilman defense team successfully argued that because the plaintiff could not identify what caused the fall, it was impossible for any expert to reliably test or opine on the floor’s condition when covered by an unknown substance. The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition. The court also rejected the opinions of the plaintiff’s liability expert, determining that they constituted an inadmissible net opinion.
Additionally, the expert relied on ADA guidelines and other industry “recommendations” that were not codified as statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to the property. Barton Gilman demonstrated that the plaintiff’s claims were based on standards that did not legally apply and on unsupported assertions that the flooring was inherently unsafe, despite the absence of any prior similar incidents.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice, delivering a complete victory for the firm’s client and reaffirming the high evidentiary burden plaintiffs must meet to survive summary judgment in premises liability actions.
