Heavy Reading: Summary Judgment Recommended in Case Where Plaintiff Hit By Books He Accidentally Pulled From Shop Shelf

In the case Pidich v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:24-CV-1848 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2025 Bloom, M.J.), the court recommended the entry of summary judgment.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was reaching up to try to get a book out of a box on a top shelf.  The book was wedged in the box tightly with other books.  The Plaintiff testified that he "pulled really hard" and the Plaintiff was then hit by multiple falling books.

This all occurred in an aisle where there was a sign that directed customers to "[a]sk for assistance with items on the top shelf."  

In this matter, Federal Magistrate Judge Bloom found that the Plaintiff violated an explicit warning to ask for assistance for items on the top shelf. As such, the court found that the evidence established that the Plaintiff caused his own injuries when the item he pulled off the top shelf fell upon him.

The court additionally noted that, assuming that the item was not, in fact, on the top shelf, then the Plaintiff had no evidence to show that the Defendant had notice of an allegedly dangerous condition.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

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

Source of image:  Photo by Becca Correia on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Granted in Case of Box that Fell From Above and Hit Plaintiff in a Store

In the case of McEntire v. Wal-Mart Supercenter, No. 5:24-CV-5992 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025 Leeson, J.), the court granted summary judgment in the case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries as a result of a box falling and hitting the Plaintiff in the store.

With regards to the Plaintiff’s claim that they needed more time for discovery, the court rejected that claim as being without merit. The court noted that the Plaintiff had already been provided with two (2) extensions. The court stated that litigants who ignore the court’s Orders and deadlines do so at their peril.

With regards to the merits of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that a Plaintiff who fails to produce any evidence beyond the fact that they were simply allegedly hit by a falling box in a store has not adequately proven either a breach of any duty or causation. The court noted that, without any evidence as to why the box fell, summary judgment was appropriate.

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 Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Bernard Hermant on www.unsplash.com.

Court Addresses Law of Liability For Items That Fall From a Wall

In the case of Inman-Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 19-CV-4717 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2024 Goldberg, J.), the court granted partial summary judgment in a premises liability case where a wall display item fell off of a wall and hit the Plaintiff.  More specifically, the item that fell was a large framed picture.

The court noted that, in cases of falling objects, the proof necessary to establish negligence under the circumstances need only be very slight. The rationale of the court was that incidents of this kind do not ordinarily occur absent negligence.

Also, in this case, the court found that no evidence supported any of the alternative possibilities raised by the Defendants in an effort to assert that the accident occurred in a non-negligent manner.

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 Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Summary Judgment Granted Due To Lack of Evidence of Actual or Constructive Notice of When The Cap of the Spray Bottle that Fell Was Loosened

In the case of Rivera v. CVS Pharmacy, No. 23-4799-KSM (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2024 Marston, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a case where a customer grabbed a spray bottle of disinfectant and the spray mechanism became detached at which point the bottle fell to the ground and some of the liquid allegedly splashed in the Plaintiff's eyes.

The court ruled that there was no evidence provided by the Plaintiff to show how, when, or under what circumstances, the spray bottle that allegedly injured the Plaintiff became loose or unscrewed and allegedly allowed for the product to then come apart and fall to the floor.

The court reiterated the general rule of law that a business is not an insurer of the safety of business visitors. Rather, such businesses only owe business visitors duties of care as established under negligence law.

The court found that there was no evidence of actual constructive notice on the part of the Defendant presented by the Plaintiff. Nor was there any evidence of a frequent recurrence that could create a duty to prevent the type of incident from occurring again.

The court also noted that there is no duty to create a property monitoring policy unless constructive notice is first established.

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

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

Premises Liability Claim Against An Out-of-Possession Landlord Allowed To Proceed

In the case of Poplawski v. Jiunta, No. 3338 CIVIL 2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 28, 2023 Williamson, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to a Plaintiff’s Complaint in which the Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when a large mirror fell on him in a business leased from the Defendant landowner.

The Defendant asserted that, as an out-of-possession landlord Defendant, the Plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action against that particular Defendant.

The court noted that a Complaint must not only give notice of a claim but also summarize the essential facts at issue. 

In this case, the Complaint alleged that the Defendant was the owner of the building where the Plaintiff was a customer, that a defect existed on the property in the form of an allegedly improperly secured mirror, and that the Plaintiff suffered injury when the mirror fell. 

The court found that these factual allegations were sufficiently specific to assert a negligence cause of action against the Defendant landlord.

Judge David J. Williamson
Monroe County

While Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas noted that, as a general rule, a landlord out-of-possession is not liable for injuries on a lease premises unless certain exceptions applied, he could not sustain the landlord Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in this case. The court found that it remained unclear as to whether or not any of the exceptions to the rule applied. 

As such, the court allowed the case to proceed into discovery so that there could be a determination if there were any additional facts to clarify the Defendant’s role and potential responsibility.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 19, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by furkanfdemir on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Denied In Case Where Plaintiff Injured by Falling Books in a Bookstore

In the case of McConn v. Dollar General, No. 2:CV-01177-MJH (W.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2022 Horan, J.), the court denied summary judgment in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries as a result of books falling on her at a Dollar General store. 

The Plaintiff alleged that she was attempting to remove a book entitled Duct Tape Mania from the center of a bookcase. 

The Plaintiff testified that the shelf was jammed with books and that, when she tugged on the book she wanted, the vertical rack at the end of the shelf became dislodged and books fell upon her, allegedly injuring her.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had not raised any issues of material fact on whether the store either created the condition that allegedly caused the jammed books on the bookshelf or that the store had prior notice of the condition.

The court denied summary judgment after finding that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence such that a reasonable jury could find that Dollar General had either created the condition that allegedly resulted in jammed books on the bookshelf and/or that the Dollar General allegedly had notice of that condition.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Expert Precluded By Court Due to Lack of Sufficient Qualifications to Testify on the Issues Presented

In the case of McConn v. Dollar General Corporation, No. 2:-21-CV-01177-MJH (W.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2022 Horan, J.), the court addressed a Defendant’s Motion under Daubert to preclude the opinion testimony of the Plaintiff’s purported retail safety expert in a case in which the Plaintiff was allegedly injured when a number of books allegedly fell upon her after she removed a jammed book from the bookshelf.

The court granted the F.R.E. 702 Motion in this case after finding that the Plaintiff’s expert lacked any relevant qualifications to testify as to issues of retail safety.

The court noted that the proposed expert of the Plaintiff had no academic background, no former training, and no retail work experience in the last fifty (50) years.

The court noted that the fact that the expert had reviewed the store’s manuals could not create expertise.

The court also noted that the expert failed to identify any industry standards with the shelving of books at a retail store. The “standards” referenced in the expert report were neither industry standards nor the Defendant store’s standards.

In the end, the court found that claimed experience by an expert does not make testimony admissible where the testimony lacks any independent indicia of reliability.

The court also noted that the bases that the expert cited for his opinion were contradicted by the facts of the case.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

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