Schulz V. Kroger

Schulz v. The Kroger Company, 963 N.E. 2d 1141 Ind. App., (2012).

Fact:

On June 23, 2005, Dixie Schulz slipped in a clear liquid near a Seven-Up display in a Kroger store located in Brownsburgh, Indiana. Mrs. Shultz hit her head and back on the floor. Jessica McCombs, a Kroger employee arrived at the scene upon hearing of the fall. The Schulzes filed premises-liability action against Kroger. On February 24, 2011, Kroger filed motion for summary judgment and designation of evidence. The trial court conducted a hearing on Kroger's motion and summarily issued its judgment in favor of Kroger. The Schulzes appeal.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Kroger lacked actual and constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition in its store.

Rule:

While a landowner's duty to a business invitee includes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from foreseeable dangers on the premises, there is no duty to insure a business invitee's safety while on the premises. As an invitor is not the insurer of an invitee's safety while the invitee is on the invitor's premises, the invitor must have actual or constructive knowledge of the danger before liability may be imposed on the invitor.

Analysis:

The affidavit of Ms. McCombs, a Kroger employee’s affidavit states that neither she nor any other employees (to the best of her knowledge) were notified of the existence of any foreign substances on the floor, therein establishing that Kroger did not have actual knowledge of the hazardous condition. The court defines constructive knowledge as a “condition [which] has existed for such a length of time and under such circumstances that it would have been discovered in time to have prevented injury if the storekeeper, his agents or employees had used ordinary care. Ms. McCombs again states that she and fellow employees had been in the area of the fall approximately 5-10 minutes before it...