A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court of the District of Columbia’s grant of summary judgment to Harris Teeter. Harris Teeter was sued by a customer who allegedly slipped on a liquid substance on the floor near a produce bin. The customer contended that there was seepage on the floor from overripe vegetables, but this was mere conjecture. The customer admittedly did not know what the alleged substance was, when it came to be on the floor, or how it came to be on the floor. After the discovery, Harris Teeter moved for summary judgment because the customer had not adduced any evidence that Harris Teeter had actual or constructive notice of any alleged substance. The Superior Court granted the motion and entered judgment in favor of Harris Teeter because there was no evidence that Harris Teeter caused the alleged substance to be on the floor, nor was there any evidence that Harris Teeter knew or should have known that an alleged substance was on the floor. The customer appealed the grant of summary judgment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Superior Court’s analysis and affirmed the grant of summary judgment. Ellen R. Stewart represented Harris Teeter throughout the proceedings. The case is Patricia Sneed v. Harris Teeter, LLC, 21-CV-397 (decided August 2, 2022, Per Curiam, unpublished).
Written by counsel Ellen R.Stewart.