Opinion
No. 07-3858-C.
April 21, 2010.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANT, NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Kathryn Daniels ("Daniels") brought this action to recover damages for injuries she suffered when she slipped and fell on a restroom floor at a cinema owned by National Amusements, Inc ("NAI"). NAI has now moved for summary judgment. The court concludes that Daniels has failed to adduce any evidence that NAI knew of a dangerous condition on the restroom floor or reasonably should have known of that condition and failed to remedy it. NAI's summary judgment motion is therefore allowed.
BACKGROUND
On December 31, 2005, Daniels visited a Showcase Cinemas movie theater in Randolph, Massachusetts, which was owned and operated by NAI. After purchasing a ticket to watch a movie, Daniels decided to use the ladies' restroom before entering the theater. She entered the restroom, walked past three stalls, and entered the fourth and last stall in the room. She briefly used the facilities in the fourth stall, then exited and began walking toward the sink to wash her hands. As she was passing the third stall, Daniels slipped and fell face first onto the floor.
After her fall, Daniels observed a puddle of water with a slight brown tinge to it that was flowing from the third stall toward a drain in the floor. She did not notice the water before she slipped and fell in it. At her deposition, she described the water as "very disgusting . . . poopy water." There were no other witnesses to the incident.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), as amended, 436 Mass. 1404 (2002). The moving party bears the initial burden of affirmatively demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 17 (1989). The moving party may satisfy this burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the opposing party's case or by submitting affidavits or other materials referenced in Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c) that demonstrate the opposing party has "no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of that party's case" at trial. Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 711, 716 (1991). Once the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to respond and allege specific facts that establish the existence of a genuine triable issue. Pederson, 404 Mass. at 17.
"The obligation of one who controls business premises is to use due care to keep the premises provided for the use of its patrons in a reasonably safe condition, or at least to warn them of any dangers that might arise from such use, which are not likely to be known to them, and of which the defendant knows or ought to know." Oliveri v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 363 Mass. 165, 166-167 (1973). "Any foreign substance, if unexpectedly encountered by a customer or other invitee on a floor, step, or walkway, can constitute a risk for purposes of imposing liability." Thurlow v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 49 Mass. App.Ct. 175, 176 (2000). To recover, "[t]he plaintiff must identify the hazardous condition that caused [her] to slip, prove that it was present prior to [her] injury, and demonstrate that the defendant either caused the substance to be there, had actual knowledge of its existence, or had a reasonable opportunity to discover and remedy it." Thorell v. ADAP, Inc., 58 Mass. App.Ct. 334, 337 (2003).
In the present case, there is no evidence that NAI was aware of the puddle of water or that the water had remained on the restroom floor long enough so that in the exercise of reasonable care, NAI should have discovered and remedied that condition. Nor is there any evidence that NAI failed to monitor the cleanliness and orderliness of the restroom. See Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 448 Mass. 780, 784 (2007) (noting that store owners are afforded "a reasonable opportunity to discover and correct any hazards before liability attaches"). Although there was evidence from which to infer that the putrid water originated from an overflowing toilet, and was the cause of Daniels' fall, she cannot establish negligent maintenance without evidence that NAI knew or reasonably should have known that the water was present on the floor. NAI is therefore entitled to summary judgment.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant National Amusements, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.