Plaintiff Shirley Broadnax suffered injuries when she slipped and fell on clear liquid on the floor at a supermarket owned by the defendant AJS Supermarkets. The trial judge had granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the “dangerous condition.” The issue upon appeal in Broadnax v. AJS Supermarkets, LLC, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2605 (App. Div. Nov. 5, 2021) was whether there could be constructive notice of the condition due to an employee walking by the spill just before the plaintiff’s accident.
The store had a video of the accident. It showed that about one minute before plaintiff fell, a bottle of liquid fell from another exiting customer’s shopping cart, spilling clear liquid on the floor. The customer, unaware of the incident, left the store. Within a minute after the spill, two other customers also exited near the spill, apparently unaware of the liquid on the floor. Then a store employee also walked near the spill “but either chose to ignore it or did not notice it before leaving the area. Seconds later, plaintiff slipped on the liquid and fell.”
The Appellate Division found that this video was sufficient proof to present a question of fact to the jury to decide whether the employee should have seen the liquid and then followed the store policy to secure the area. There was no deposition testimony or certification from the employee as to what he saw prior to the plaintiff’s fall. The Court did not agree with the trial judge who determined from viewing the video footage that “it was unreasonable to conclude the employee should have seen the spilled material in the circumstances.” Rather, the Appellate Division ruled that this issue was a question for the jury to decide. Thus, the summary judgment order dismissing the complaint was reversed for the case to proceed to trial.
