By: Tim Nault
The Washington Supreme Court recently issued a new premises liability decision in Galassi v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, of which most businesses with a physical storefront should be aware. In Galassi, a customer to Lowe’s hardware store was injured when an improperly shelved roll of wire garden fencing on her. As is the modern trend, this was a self-serve area where customers could get their own merchandise from the shelves. Traditionally, the plaintiff would have been required to prove actual or constructive notice of the condition by the store—i.e., that store employees were responsible for improperly shelving the wire garden fencing or that they knew or should have known that another customer had misplaced it upon the shelf after inspecting it. Lowe’s submitted testimony that employees at its store conducted regular walkthroughs, would correct any improperly placed items that they observed, and that they had not observed any such improperly placed items before the event in question. Because the plaintiff had no contrary evidence and could not prove notice in Galassi, the trial court granted summary judgment to the store.
The plaintiff appealed and the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment dismissal. In doing so, the Court further expanded an exception to the general notice rule—named for the seminal case of Pimentel v. Roundup Co.—where an unsafe condition is considered reasonably foreseeable even without specific notice. Under the Pimentel exception, spills in traditional areas of self-service were considered reasonably foreseeable and a plaintiff did not have to prove actual notice of the spill. In Galassi, the Court held that the Pimentel exception applies to any allegedly unsafe conditions, including falling merchandise, and not just spills upon the floor. The Court further noted that the Pimentel exception applies to any area of self-service and not just traditional areas like the produce section or beverage section in a grocery store.
Lowe’s argued that this would expand the Pimentel exception such that it essentially swallowed the traditional rule of notice, given that so many retail stores have moved towards self service in nearly all departments in modern times. The Court acknowledged this was likely true, but declined to readjust the Pimentel rule in light of modern practices. This decision further moves retail stores towards essentially becoming guarantors of customer safety in many instances and approaches imposition of strict liability for many injuries occurring within their space, at least insofar as the store follows the modern trend of customer self-service.
Paine Hamblen’s litigation attorneys are well-versed and court-room tested in the intricacies of insurance defense and defending business against a multitude of claims, ranging from employment to premises liability claims. Contact us today to see how we can protect you and your business.
