成人X站

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that a lawsuit against Lowe鈥檚 Home Centers can proceed after a woman was injured by falling merchandise in one of its stores, finding that the company may be liable under a 鈥渞easonable foreseeability鈥� exception to traditional premises liability laws.

This ruling comes with potentially significant implications for self-service retail stores like Lowe’s.

The case, stems from a 2020 incident in which Hwayo Jenny Galassi was shopping for garden supplies at a Lowe鈥檚 store. While she was selecting a roll of fencing from a high shelf, another roll fell on her, breaking her toe. No employees or other customers were present at the time, and the area of the store lacked video surveillance.

Here were the legal arguments

Galassi sued Lowe鈥檚, arguing the store鈥檚 self-service method of displaying heavy fencing rolls on high shelves created an unreasonably dangerous condition that it should have foreseen because it stands to reason that customers were likely to handle and improperly restock the items.

Lowe鈥檚 denied responsibility, asserting that it had no “actual or constructive notice” of a hazardous condition before the incident. The company argued that under traditional liability law, it could only be held liable if it knew or should have known about the dangerous condition beforehand. Since no prior complaints or reports of unsafe shelving existed, Lowe鈥檚 claimed it could not be found negligent.

A trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lowe鈥檚, agreeing that the store had no notice of the specific unsafe condition. However, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that Lowe鈥檚 method of operation could make the risk of falling merchandise reasonably foreseeable, even without direct notice of the hazard.

Here’s how the Washington State Supreme Court decided

On Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the appellate ruling, finding that Galassi鈥檚 claim should proceed to trial.

The court noted that self-service retail stores 鈥� where customers frequently handle and move merchandise without employee supervision 鈥� can create inherent risks that businesses have a duty to address.

“A trier-of-fact could find the alleged unsafe condition in this case was reasonably foreseeable due to the nature of Lowe鈥檚 business and its methods of operation. Yet, there is also contrary evidence, such as a lack of prior similar incidents, from which a trier-of-fact could reach the opposite conclusion. As a result, the Court of Appeals correctly held that there is ‘a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the (reasonable foreseeability) exception to traditional notice requirements applies,'” the Washington State Supreme Court wrote.

This ruling simply rejects a summary judgement dismissing the case. It does not, however, mean Lowe’s should be held liable.

Indeed, the Court found: “The fact that Lowe鈥檚 summary judgment strategy was unsuccessful in this case does not relieve plaintiffs of their burden of proof. It is merely a case-specific outcome in accordance with the well-established rule that ‘if the moving party does not sustain its burden, summary judgment should not be granted, regardless of whether the nonmoving party has submitted affidavits or other evidence in opposition to the motion.'”

Now what?

The ruling allows Galassi to proceed with her case before a trial court. A jury may ultimately determine whether Lowe鈥檚 was negligent in its store design and product placement.

The decision could have broad implications for retailers that rely on self-service displays, potentially increasing their responsibility for customer safety.

The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings.