;)
April 21st, 2025
In Knepp v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-144 (W.D. Pa. February 28, 2025 Fischer, J.) the Court denied Walmart’s Motion for Summary Judgment concluding that even if a watermelon display was an open and obvious dangerous condition, a question of fact existed to determine if Walmart should have anticipated that Knepp would be distracted by carrying a watermelon he obtained from the display causing him to not see or protect himself from tripping over the pallet corner of the display.
While shopping at Walmart, Mr. Knepp sustained injuries after he tripped over a low-lying pallet corner protruding from a watermelon display. He immediately notified Walmart that he did not see what he tripped over prior to the fall but believed that it was the pallet as he turned and observed it after he had fallen. Knepp filed a civil damage claim against Walmart alleging that Walmart’s negligence in establishing the dangerous condition caused his harm and losses.
Photos of the accident scene showed the corners of the rectangular pallet protruded several inches beyond the octagonal Health Harvest Farms box containing the watermelons for sale and that the top of the pallet corners were covered. Further, a view from above revealed that the green and red watermelon graphics which are on the box continued onto the corners and partially obscured the pallet. There was also a “pixilated” surveillance video of the accident.
After the completion of discovery, Walmart moved for summary judgment arguing that Knepp presented insufficient evidence to establish that the display constituted a dangerous condition. Walmart also argued that even if a dangerous condition existed, it was an open and obvious condition that Knepp failed to recognize by using reasonable care for his own safety.
Because Knepp was shopping at Walmart, he was considered a business invitee. As such, Walmart owed him “the highest duty owed to any entrant upon land” such that he “was not required to be on alert to discover defects which were not obvious” and Walmart had the responsibility to protect him “not only against known dangers, but also against those which might be discovered by [it] with reasonable care.” Robinson v. Seven Springs Mountain Resort, Inc., 323 A.3d 202, 2024 WL 2955263, at *3 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 12, 2024) Moreover, “even if the danger [is] open and obvious,” Walmart “is not relieved of its duty of care for open and obvious dangers when it ‘has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it.’” Robinson, 2024 WL 2955263, at *5.
“A danger is deemed to be ‘obvious’ when ‘both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of the visitor, exercising normal perception, intelligence, and judgment.’” Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178, 469 A.2d 120, 123 (1983) “[T]he question of whether a danger was known or obvious is usually a question of fact for the jury.” Id. at 124. A court may decide this question, however, where “reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusion.” Id. Pusateri v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 646 F. Supp. 3d 650, 654 (W.D. Pa. 2022).
According to the Court, the video depicted Knepp making an initial pass of the display as he moved toward the self-check-out area, while holding what appeared to be a large meat package in one hand and a smaller package of cheese in the other hand. Knepp returned to the watermelon display and placed the packages on the display and retrieved a watermelon in his right hand and the other items in his left, one at a time. As he attempted to return to the self-check-out area, his right leg is closest to the display and he can be seen falling. Walmart argued that the video conclusively showed that Knepp either saw the pallet corner when he initially passed the display or returned to shop for watermelons or that the pallet corner would be open and obvious to reasonable customers.
The Court disagreed that the video blatantly contradicted Knepp’s version of the events, such that no reasonable jury could believe Knepp’s version of the facts. Moreover, the Court determined that even if the Court agreed with Walmart that the pallet protruding from the watermelon display was an open and obvious condition, summary judgment would still not be warranted because a reasonable jury may conclude that Walmart should have “‘anticipate[d] the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.’” Robinson, 2024 WL 2955263, at *3. Therefore, the Court ruled that Walmart is not relieved of its duty of care for open and obvious dangers when it ‘has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it.’” Robinson, 2024 WL 2955263, at *4.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that Walmart failed to demonstrate that summary judgment was appropriate because there were material facts in dispute between the parties as to the whether the low-lying pallet corner protruding from the watermelon display was a dangerous condition, if it was an open and obvious condition that Knepp should have avoided with the exercise of reasonable care for his own safety, and if Walmart should have anticipated that Knepp would be distracted by carrying a watermelon he obtained from the display causing him to not see or protect himself from tripping over the pallet corner.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania’s opinion in Knepp v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 3:22-CV-144 (W.D. Pa. February 28, 2025 Fischer, J.) can be accessed here.
