## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 3916 L EN ORA R EID , P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. K OHL ’ S D EPART MENT S TORE S, I NCO RPORATE D , a Del aw ar e Cor pora ti on l i censed t o do busi ness i n I l l i noi s, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C472

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judge .
A RGUED J UNE 4, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2008

Befo re B AUER, W OOD a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Le no r a Re i d s l i pped an d fel l o n the fl oor of a retail store ow ne d an d op erated b y K o hl’s D ep ar tm en ts Sto re s, In c . Sh e s u b se q u e n t ly b ro u gh t t h is action a gainst K ohl’s. T he d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j udg m en t i n f av o r o fKoh l ’ s, a nd Re i d a ppea l ed. F o r the r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 07

- 3916 On D e c e mb e r 7, 2 0 0 3 , R e i d a n d h e r fr i e n d Ant ho ny A dki ns vi si ted Kohl’ s t o shop f orm en’ s dre ss shi rt s. A fte r p er u sin g ite m s in t h e m en ’s se c tio n of th e s to re , Re id lost i nt erest an d de cid ed to w alk over t o the w om en ’s paj amas s ec ti o n; the men’ s se cti on w as c ar pet ed an d se p a r a te d from th e o th er se c tio n by a tile floor . A s R eid st eppe d o ffo fthe c arp et in to the a i sl e, s he s l i pped an d f el l, sust ai ni ng m i l d inj u rie s. S he sa w nearthe spot ofher f al l a pink m i l kshak e s pil l ed fro m a l ar ge cup in a poo l o n the t i l e fl o o r . Adk i ns de s c r ib e d the s c e ne : “ the fl o o r w as w et w ith so m et h in g t h at look ed like a st r a w b e r ry m ilk shake , l i k e i c e c r e a m a nd a b i gp ud dl e o n the fl o o r wi th a c u p an d a st ra w , an d it w as op en .” The m anage r on d uty at the st or e, Kell y Ri zzo , ar ri ved at the s cene to ass i st R eid

. S he to o saw the “pi nk sm oo thi e, mi l k s ha k y i c e c r e a m t y pe o fthing, ” a s we l l a s a cu p, a l i d, a nd a str aw on the fl o o r n e a r R e i d wh e n s he a r r i v e d. H o wev er, Ri zz o di d n ot see the s pi l l ed m i l k sh ak e o n the fl oor du ring an insp ection of th e aisl e area sh ortly before the f al l

. A ccor ding to Riz zo, Kohl’ s h ad a r outi ne pro cedu re f ori nspec tin g th e pr em i ses atthe K ohl ’ s s tor e. That pr ac ti ce i nv o l ve d a c o nt i nuo us wal k

- through by the m an a g e r o n d u t y t o e n s u r e th a t th e s t o r e wa s c l e a n a nd safe. R izzo testified th at sh e had f oll ow ed this proc e d ure o n De ce m be r 7, 2 00 3. Dur i nghe r wal k

- th r o ug h, s he passed the ai sl e where Rei d had fal l en atthe m ostte n m i nutes pr i orto the f al l and had not see n the spi l l ed m i l kshak e. S he furtherte sti fi ed that no e m plo yee s o r custo m er s r epor ted the spi l l pri orto Rei d’s acci dent. R eid fil ed a com p la in t against K ohl’s i n an I ll inois court on N ove m ber1, 20 05 , and Kohl’ s r em ove d the ca se toN o. 07

- 3916 3

A bri efno te on juri s di c t i on: the re i s no que s t i on thatthe 1 p arties ar e d iv erse

— R eid is an Illinois citizen an d K oh l’ s is a D elaw are corp or atio n w ith its pr inc i p a l pla ce of b u siness in W iscon sin. As far as th e jurisd iction al am ou nt, the r e is li ttle in the r ec or d ( butul t i m at el y e nough ) thate s t abl i s he s thatthe am ou nt in con tro v ersy exceed s $75 ,000. In h er co m p l ain t, R eid cl aim ed thatshe s uffered “s evere and deb il it ati ng inj uries ” that re qui re d “a l ar ge s um ofm one y f or m edi c al, ho s pi t al an d doc t or care and atte nti on. ” Sh e did not att ach an ad d am num cl ause. I n h erdepo s i t i on, Rei d dis c us s ed h er i nj ur i es t o h er b ack and sid e, as w ell as the p hy sica l t h e r ap y to ad d ress these injurie s, (co n tin u ed ...) f edera l co urt on J anuary6, 20 06. The dist ri ct c ourtgr anted K oh l’s m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n Se ptem ber19 , 2007, fi nd i n g that Kohl ’ s had no actualo r const ructi ve no t i c e o fthe s pi l l p r i o r t o R e i d’ s f a l l a nd tha tthe spi l l ed m il ksh ake w as an ope n an d obvious con d iti on th at K ohl’s owed n o legal duty t o prot ect aga i nst. Thi s t i m el y a pp eal f o l l o we d. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . D ars tv. Int e rs t at eBr ands Corp. , 51 2 F
. 3d 903, 907 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. Sum m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate w hen ther e i s no g en uine i ssue as to any m ate ri alf act an d the mov i ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o j ud g men t a s a m att er o fl aw. F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c)
. W e vi ew the r ec o r d i n the l i gh t m ost f avo rabl e t o the no n-m ovi ng par ty and draw all re as on ab le in fe r e n c es in t h at p ar ty ’s fa vo r. D a rst, 512 F. 3d at 907. Illino is law gov er n s t h e e x te n t o f K oh l’s liab ility in t h is dive rs i ty action
. I n I l l i noi s, busi nesse s o w e thei r i nvi tee s 14 N o. 07

- 3916

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 b u t d id no t state th e s p e c i fic am ou nt o f he r d am ag es. P rior to re m ovi ng the c as e t o fede ra l c our t, Kohl ’ s s er ved R ei d with a reques t to a d m itthats he s oug ht dam ages in e xce ss of$75, 000. R e i d a d m i t t e d th a tsh e d i d . I n it s n o t i c e o f r e m o v a l , K o h l ’s stated its g o od f aith b elief that the am ou nt in con tro v ersy excee d ed th e jurisd iction al am ou nt. B ased on this ( alb eit scan t) rec ord, we are sat is fie d that the j uris dicti onal am ount has b een m et, and w e m ay p ro ceed to the m erits velnon . a d ut y to m aintain the p rem ises i n a reason ably safe c on d i t i o n to av oid inju rin g t h em . M ars hal l v. Burge rKi ng C o rp., 222 I l l

. 2d 422, 305 I l l

. Dec. 897, 856 N
. E.2 d 1048, 10 57- 58 (20 06 ); Thom pson v. Eco nom y Super M arts , I nc ., 221 I ll

. A p p . 3d 263, 163 Il l. D ec. 731 , 5 81 N
. E
. 2d 885, 888 (1991 ); P et erson v. Wal-M art Store s, Inc. , 241 F.3d 603 , 604 (7th C ir. 20 01 ) (ap p lyin g I llin oi s law ); R es tate m ent( Second) of To rts §§ 34 3, 34 4 (1 96 5). L iab ility ca n be im p os ed w h en a b u siness’ s i nvi tee i s i nj ured b y slip ping on a f or ei gn subst an ce o n i ts pr emi se s i fthe i nv i te e es tabl i sh es tha t th e bu siness had actu al orcons tru ct iv e notice of the d an gero u s co n d itio n th at ca u se d th e fa ll. Pavl i k v. Wal

-M a rt Store s, Inc. , 323 I l l

. A pp . 3d 1060 , 25 7 I l l

. Dec. 38 1, 75 3 N
. E.2 d 10 07, 101 0 (2 00 1); To m cz a k v. Pla ne t s phe r e, Inc . , 31 5 I ll

. A p p . 3d 1033, 249 I ll

. D ec. 58, 735 N
. E
. 2d 662, 666 (2000). Re i d a r g ue s th ats he pr es en te d e vi den ce fr o m which a tr i ero ff act coul d determ i ne thatKo h l’s had co nstr ucti ve knowle dge o fthe spi l l

. W here co nstr ucti ve know led ge i s a l l ege d, “[ o] fcr i ti cali m port ance is w h etherthe subs t a n c e th a tc a u s e d th e a c c i d e n t wa s th e r e a l e n g th o ft i me so that i n the exerc ise o fo rdi narycar e i ts prese nceN o. 07

- 3916 5 shoul d h av e been di sco ver ed. ” Torrez v. T G I Fri day ’s, Inc. , 509 F. 3d 808, 81 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng Tom cz ak, 31 5 I l l

. App. 3d 10 33 , 7 35 N
. E. 2d at6 67 ) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns an d alt er at ion s o m itt ed ); Thom ps on , 221 I l l

. A pp . 3d 263, 58 1 N
. E.2 d at 8 88 ( noti ng tha t in est abl i shi ng co nstr ucti ve no ti ce , the t im e e lementi s th e m at er i alf ac to r )
. Abs en t an y ev i den ce demons tr at i ng th e l en g th o f ti m e th at th e substa nce was on the fl oo r, a pla i nti ffcannotes ta b lish c on st ru c tiv e n ot ice
. Tom cz ak, 31 5 I l l

. A pp . 3d 1033 , 24 9 Ill. D ec . 58, 73 5 N .E .2d at66 8; Ha yes v. Ba iley, 80 I l l

. A pp . 3d 1027, 36 I ll

. D ec. 124, 400 N
. E
. 2d 544, 546-47 (1980 ). I n th i s ca se , Re i d f ai l s to m ee t he r bur den o f sh o wi ng K oh l’ s co nstr ucti ve noti ce

— tha ti s , tha tthe f o r e i g n s ubs t a n c e h a d b e e n o n th e fl o o r f o r s uc h a l e n g th o ft i me that K ohl ’ s s houl d have di sco ver ed it . Rei d prese nted photog ra phs ofthe parti al l y m elt ed m i l kshak e t ake n shor tl y a fterthe acci dent w hi ch sugg est, ac c or d i ng to Rei d, that i t had be en o n the fl oo r f oran ex te n ded per i od of tim e. R eid te st ified th at th ou gh sh e cou ld n otte ll ex ac tly h ow lon g t h e m ilks h ak e w as on th e floo r p rior to h er fall, “[i ]t app eare d to m e tha t it m ay ha ve bee n d ow n th ere for so m e t im e b ec au se it w as st ar tin g t o g e t l i q u id in som e a re as ofthe spi l l age . I t was l i quid and runni ng a l i tt l e bi t. ” S he fur th erde sc r ibe d the c o ns i st en cyo fthe substa nce o n the gr ound by not i ng tha t “ som e o fi t was thi ck and the o th erpartwas m or e l i quid. ” Ad ki ns al so opi ned on how l ong the m i l kshak e had be en m el ti ng o n the fl oo r, tho ugh he r eached a diff er ent c oncl usi on a fter vie w in g t h e sc en e. H e te st ified th at it look ed as if th e s p ill h a d “ j u s th a p p e n e d [ b e c a u s e ] i ts e e med t o b e i c e c r e a m, an d it h ad n ’t m elt ed ye t.”6 N o. 07

- 3916 N ei th er th e te st i m o ny o f Re i d an d Ad k i ns nor the photog ra phs ofthe spi l l age i nd i cate with a ny deg re e o f certain ty ho w l o ng the m il ksh ake h ad been on th e fl oor. Tho ug h Re i d a r g ue s th ata f ac t- fi nde r c o ul d i nferfr o m the tex tu re ofthe mel te d b ev er ag e th ati t ha d b ee n o n the fl oo r f oran e xtended p er i od ofti m e, thi s i nfe re nce i s f ar too specul ati ve to w ar ra nt m uch consi derat ion . W e know l i ttl e about the s ubstance thatcau sed Rei d to sl i p other than it s co l or . Rei d prese nted no e vi dence r ega rdi ng i ts or i gi n ori ts com posi ti on

— perhaps i ts origi nal o w ner o r d e r e d i te x t r a th i n o r th i c k ; p e r h a p s th e mi l k s h a k e c a me f r o m a v en do r know n fo r pa r ti cul ar l y he av y o r l i g ht m i l kshak es; per haps the m i l kshak e w as nota m i l kshak e ata l l, b ut rat he r fr o ze n y o g ur t o ra fr ui t smoo th i e. The re cor d i s d ev oi d ofany f acts wh i ch w oul d have g i ven i nsi ght into the r el evantti m e fra m e. Reid a lso f ai l ed to es ta bl i sh thatthe m i l kshak e m el ted o n the fl oo r speci fical l y, and not in the cup, bef or e i ts own erunw i tti ngl y ( or de l ib e r a t e l y ) t o s s e d i to n the fl o o r . R e i d mi g hth a v e bee n ai ded by exper t t est i m ony, per haps on t h e d ynam i cs o f m el ti n g obj ects o r the v i sco si ty ofm i l k-base d fr oze n beve ra ges . W i thout any o fthi s, Rei d’s curso ryco ncl usi on th at the m i l kshak e m ust hav e be en o n the gr ound “f or som e t i m e” f al l s fl at. So the onl y a ffi rm ati ve sta tem ent r ega rd ing the l ength ofti m e ca m e fro m Ri zzo , wh o sta ted thatthe m i l kshak e w as in t h e a isle for a t m os t t en m in u te s p rior t o th e fa ll. Bec au se Re i d f ai l ed to pr o ve o th er wi se , we, a s di d the dist ri ct cour t, tr eatthatte n m i nutes a s the o utsi de l i m i t o f tim e. Se ePe t e rs on , 24 1 F
. 3d at 604.N o. 07

- 3916 7 U n d er th e c irc u m st an c es o f th is c as e, n o re as on ab le p e r s o n c o u l d c o n c l u d e th a t t e n mi n u t e s wa s e n o ug h t i me to gi ve K ohl ’ s co nstr ucti ve noti ce o fthe spi l l ed substa nce. Illino is law rec og n ize s t h at th e r e is n o b rig h t-lin e ru le i nd i cating the r equi si te ti m e t o est abl i sh noti ce, tho ugh p er i o d s in ex c es s o f te n m in u te s h av e fa iled th e t es t. See, e . g. , Ha yes , 80 I l l

. A pp . 3d 1027, 40 0 N
. E.2 d at 5 46- 47. Rather w e l oo k t o the c irc u m sta nces ofthe parti cul arcas e t o deter m i ne i fthe l ength ofti m e g ave ri se to noti ce. Pet e rs on , 2 41 F
. 3d at6 05
. Her e, Ri zz o t es ti fied tha t o n the aft er n oo n of th e a c c id en t, ve ry few cu st om er s w e r e in th e st o r e, whi chl es se ne d the l i k el i ho o d o fthe ha za r do us c on d itio n . Se eH r e s i l v. Se ars , Roe b uc k & C o. , 82 I l l

. A pp . 3d 1000 , 38 Ill

. D ec. 447, 403 N
. E
. 2d 678, 680 (1980 ). W ere cus tom ertr affi c heav y, the onus would have bee n on K ohl ’ s t o provi de fre q u en t a nd car eful patro l l i ng. Pet e rs on , 24 1 F
. 3d at 604- 05. The st or e was al m ostem pty, s o the du t y t o i ns pe c tth e p r e mi s e s a c c o r di ng l y de c r e a s e d. I n additi on, the K ohl ’ s s tor e’ s i nt er n al procedure f or m o ni to r i ng f o r spi l l s an d o th er dan g er o us c o ndi ti o ns ap p ro p ria te ly a d d re ss ed th e t h re at o f su c h iss u es . H re si l , 40 3 N .E .2d at68 0; s e ea l s o Pe t e r s on , 241 F. 3d at 604- 05. Consi deri ng these c ondit i ons as a whole , te n m i nutes was no t en o ug h t o g i ve Koh l ’ s co ns tr uct i ve no ti ce o fthe sp ill. Re i d a r g ue s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tmi s a ppl i ed Pet e rs on and hel d, contr ar y t o I l l i noi s l aw , thatten m i nutes was de fa ct o no t en o ug h t i m e to e st ab l i shc o nst ru c tiv e n ot ice . To th e con tr ar y, th e d ist ric t cou rtp ro p er ly a ddr e s s e d Pet e rs on an d I l l i no i s l aw b y e xa m i ni ngthe spe ci f i c c i r c u ms t a n c e s o fth e c a s e a n d c o n d i t i o n s o fthe8 N o. 07

- 3916

Because we find thatK ohl’ s had no noti ce ofthe s pi ll ed 2 subst ance, w e need not add res s the dist ri ctcourt’ s other ho ld ing tha t the co nd ition w as op en an d ob v iou s.

9- 16- 08 sto re atthe ti m e o fthe f al l

. I t a cknowle dged the ab sence ofa bri ght- l i ne r ule o n the appropri ate l ength ofti m e t o est abl i sh co nstru c tive not i ce, di sti ngui shed the f acts o f Pet e rs on , a nd l i k en ed Re i d’ s ca se t o tha t i n H re si l
. Nothi ng i n the dist ri ct cour t’ s anal ysi s of the const ructi ve n ot ice i s s u e r a n a f o u l o fI l l i n o i s l a w. By f ai l i ng to m eether burden i n est abl i shi ng co nstr ucti ve no ti ce , Re i d’ s cl ai m mustf ai l

. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s g r an t 2 ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent i s A FFI RMED .