Nakia Hampton v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia considers motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a slip-and-fall incident at a Publix store. The court grants Maplebear Inc.’s motion and grants in part and denies in part Publix’s motion, addressing actual and constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard under Georgia premises-liability law. The provided text ends during the court’s discussion of Publix’s alleged actual knowledge.

Holdings

1. Publix was not entitled to summary judgment on the premises-liability claim because a genuine dispute existed concerning Publix's actual knowledge of the hazardous condition and whether ordinary care was exercised.
2. Hampton failed to establish constructive knowledge under the first prong because the Publix employees were behind counters, engaged with customers or other tasks, and had obstructed viewpoints, while Hampton herself did not see the liquid before falling.
3. Hampton failed to establish constructive knowledge under the second prong because Publix showed that an inspection occurred approximately eight minutes before the fall, a period the court held was adequate as a matter of law, and Hampton offered no evidence that the procedure was unreasonable or not followed.
4. Publix was not entitled to summary judgment on the vicarious-liability claim because a genuine dispute existed as to the source of the liquid and whether Publix controlled the hazard or could have warned customers.
5. Publix was entitled to summary judgment on the negligent-training-and-supervision claim because Hampton conceded that Publix was not negligent in hiring, training, or supervising its associates and offered no evidence of similar incidents or employee tendencies.
6. Maplebear was entitled to summary judgment because Hampton did not establish that the woman with the leaking bottle was an Instacart shopper or otherwise connected to Maplebear; the agency-liability claim against Publix also failed as a consequence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Publix was entitled to summary judgment on Hampton's premises-liability claim because she lacked evidence that Publix had actual or constructive knowledge of the liquid hazard.
2. Whether Publix was entitled to summary judgment on Hampton's vicarious-liability claim.
3. Whether Hampton presented evidence sufficient to support negligent training or supervision by Publix.
4. Whether Maplebear was entitled to summary judgment on Hampton's agency-liability claim because the suspected shopper was not shown to be using Instacart and Instacart shoppers were independent contractors.

Disposition

other