Kristen Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Wal-Mart’s internal policies and procedures for spills appropriately addressed the threat of hazardous conditions
• holding legally insufficient plaintiff’s speculation that Walmart “was responsible for spilling” water on the floor because an employee may have been stocking soda and water nearby
• rejecting the theory that a Wal-Mart shelf stocker had negligently spilled water on the floor because it was “based purely on speculation”
• rejecting argument that Illinois law requires “continuous monitoring and patrolling of a store’s safety conditions….”
• rejecting the plaintiff’s speculation that a store’s employees, rather than a customer, spilled the water contributing to the plaintiff’s slip
• explaining that “all evidence in this case leads to the conclusion that the puddle [in which plaintiff slipped] was present for a very short period of time,” where (1) plaintiff “testified that she did not know where the water came from”; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).