You're in Luck: Summary Judgment Denied in PetSmart Store Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Dominiak v. PetSmart, Inc., No. 23-4 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2023 Perez, J.), the court denied a motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case.

This matter involved a slip and fall on  a yellowish liquid on the floor in a PetSmart store that was presumed to be urine left by a dog.  Neither the Plaintiff nor the store representatives could say how the liquid came to be on the floor or how long it was there before the Plaintiff encountered it.  However, evidence was produced by the store to show that dogs routinely urinate on the store's floor several times a day, every day.  Because dog urination occurred so frequently in the stores, the store had regular inspections schedule and several "oops stations" throughout the store for clean up purposes.    

The court found that the Plaintiff had presented disputed facts as to the issues of both actual and constructive notice on the part of the Defendant. The court noted that issues of fact were presented with regards to actual notice by virtue of the frequency that the particular type of hazard had allegedly recurred, and with respect to constructive notice possibly being able to be found by the jury due to the central location within the store where the fall occurred.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Hannah Lim on www.unsplash.com.