## Facts

- Dolores Howard, age 65, slipped and fell in a Wal-Mart store in Cahokia, Illinois, on a puddle of liquid soap in the aisle where soap was shelved.
- No witness saw who spilled the soap, and the source container was never found.
- There was no evidence establishing how long the soap had been on the floor; it could have been only minutes.
- Employees commonly stocked shelves in the morning, and Howard fell in the morning.
- Howard sued Wal-Mart for negligence; the case proceeded in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
- At trial, the jury awarded Howard $18,750 in damages.
- Wal-Mart moved for judgment as a matter of law based on insufficient evidence of negligence; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a Wal-Mart employee (rather than a customer) created the hazardous condition.
2. Whether, given the lack of evidence about the duration of the spill, Wal-Mart was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in a premises-liability claim governed by Illinois law.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Howard.
- The court held that the district court properly denied Wal-Mart’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- Although the evidence was minimal, it permitted a rational inference that an employee more likely than not caused the spill, which was enough to submit liability to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois premises-liability law, a store must keep premises reasonably safe, but need inspect and patrol only at reasonable intervals, not continuously.
- A plaintiff may prove liability either by showing (a) the defendant or its employees created the dangerous condition, or (b) the defendant failed to discover and remedy a condition created by others within a reasonable time.
- When there is no evidence of how long a hazard existed, a constructive-notice theory based on failure to discover and clean within a reasonable time may fail.
- In a civil case, circumstantial evidence can satisfy the preponderance standard if it makes the plaintiff’s theory more likely than not; the jury may resolve competing probabilistic inferences.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper if a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff on permissible inferences from the record.

## Conclusion

Because the record supported a reasonable inference that an employee caused the soap spill and the plaintiff was not required to prove duration to prevail on that theory, the jury’s negligence verdict stood and Wal-Mart was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 160 F.3d 358 (7th Cir. 1998)