Cole Haan LLC emerged unscathed in a recent legal victory following a premises liability claim brought against the renowned retail brand. Santa Clara County Superior Court’s swift grant of summary judgment in favor of Cole Haan in May 2022 was echoed in California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, affirming the retail store had not breached its duty to plaintiff, Lin Li.[i]

Plaintiff alleged injuries sustained from a falling shoe box while visiting a Cole Haan retail store in 2017. Li maintained she had been trying on shoes in the store when a male customer tried to reach over to shoes stacked above her, causing a shoebox to fall and strike her.

At issue was Cole Haan’s regular method of storing boxes on top of display shelves in its retail store. The trial court granted Cole Haan’s motion for summary judgment, concluding, “[N]o dangerous condition existed at the time of the subject incident that caused [Li] to be injured.”[ii] The appellate court agreed, finding the display shelves did not create a dangerous condition – that is, a condition that involves an “unreasonable” risk of injury[iii]

Summary Judgment

Cole Haan’s burden as the moving party on summary judgment required a prima facie showing there was no triable issue of material fact. The appellate court affirmed that Cole Haan met its initial burden with evidence that:

• The shoe boxes were stacked in an orderly fashion;
• The stacks were no more than four boxes high;
• It was the employees’ responsibility to retrieve boxes from the stacks;
• They were trained to do so by ladder;
• Employees regularly inspected the stacks;
• Customers were encouraged to request employee assistance;
• The store manager had never previously known a customer to independently reach for boxes;
• There had been no other incidents in California in which a shoebox fell from a shelf and injured a person.

The plaintiff did not meet her burden. The injured plaintiff must establish sufficient facts or circumstances that support an inference of a breach of duty, to defeat a summary judgment motion by a defendant that is asserting due care was exercised.[iv] Whether or not a condition is dangerous depends on case-specific evidence.[v]

“Shoes Are Not Pumpkins”

Central to the plaintiff’s argument was the purported failure of Cole Haan to maintain safe premises, thereby exposing patrons to undue risks. Li relied on Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., an over 60-year-old California Supreme Court Case, to assert that certain conditions, such as self-service displays, give rise to heightened duties of care.[vi] The Bridgman case concerned produce market display-pumpkins stacked in two layers on a 29-inch-high stand that were foreseeably “self-service.” In Bridgman, the high court noted that, where an owner operates his store on a self-service plan under which customers are invited to inspect, remove, and replace goods on the shelves, the owner may be required to take greater precautions.

However, these arguments were ineffective. According to the appellate court, “Shoes are not pumpkins, in terms of the customer/retailer experience, and neither the record nor Bridgman affords a trier of fact any basis for requiring Cole Haan to treat them as though they are.” [vii]

Whether a store owner operates on a self-service plan or not, the basic principle to be followed is that the owner must use the care required of a reasonably prudent man acting under the same circumstances.

Takeaways

Owners of retail stores do not need to fear plaintiffs with unreasonable requests. The courts will always evaluate these cases based on the specific facts, and they are looking for reasonable prudence. Safety precautions at stores do not have to be perfect.

Keep Reading

Cannabis Workers Allege Quota to Trim 4 Pounds a Day Violates the California Labor Code The Ninth Circuit Reminds Us: Every Word Matters NO WAY, PRO SE! The Consequences of Abusing the Judicial System as a Pro Se Litigant in Colorado Victim of Financial Mismanagement or Unlawful Retaliation? New Jersey City University Program Founder Claims School Retaliated After Reporting Alleged Sexual Harassment “Real Housewives” Gets a Reality Check Missing a Chapter: Insufficiency of Expert Deposition Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation Crash Course: Why Summary Judgment Misses the Mark in Illinois Multi-Cause Limousine Crash Collision Bitter Truths: Lead, Cadmium, and Defective Pleadings in California Chocolate Class Action The Law of Unintended Consequences: Including Insurance Brokers in Litigation Strategy Communication May Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

Sources

[i] Li v. Cole Haan LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2024, No. H050205) 2024 WL 299807

[ii] Li v. Cole Haan LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2024, No. H050205) 2024 WL 299807, at *2

[iii] Li v. Cole Haan LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2024, No. H050205) 2024 WL 299807, at *5

[iv] Howard, supra, 203 Cal.App.4^th at p.432

[v] Li v. Cole Haan LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2024, No. H050205) 2024 WL 299807, at *4

[vi] Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446 [2 Cal.Rptr. 146, 147, 348 P.2d 696, 697]

[vii] Li v. Cole Haan LLC (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 26, 2024, No. H050205) 2024 WL 299807, at *4