UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CLARA SIKORSKI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) 3:22-cv-205-OAW v. ) ) WAL-MART REAL ESTATE ) BUSINESS TRUST, ET AL., ) Defendants. ) ) RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 35 THIS ACTION is brought by Plaintiff Clara Sikorski against Defendants Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., and Wal-Mart, Inc., (collectively, “Wal-Mart”). ECF No. 1-1. She alleges that she tripped, fell, and suffered various injuries at Wal-Mart’s location at 150 Barnum Avenue Cut-Off, in Stratford, Connecticut (hereinafter, the “Store”), on account of Wal-Mart’s negligence. Id., ¶¶ 5-9. Following the completion of discovery, see ECF No. 32, Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, see ECF No. 35, which Plaintiff opposes, see ECF No. 39. The court carefully has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of law and the broader record in this case. See ECF Nos. 1-1, 12, 14, 15, 18, 35, 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 35-4, 35-5, 39, 40. For all the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff tripped, fell, and suffered various injuries while attempting to enter the Store on April 1, 2021. ECF No. 1-1, ¶¶ 5-11. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Plaintiff was wearing a cloth facemask at that time. ECF No. 39, at 4. Plaintiff alleges that her trip-and-fall was caused by “a raised portion of concrete colored similarly to the normal walking surface . . . around the base of a structural pillar” (hereinafter, the “Pillar”) near the Store’s entrance. ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 6. She further alleges that Wal-Mart “exacerbated” this “tripping hazard” by “creating a temporary walking lane using blue tape and makeshift bollards” to guide Plaintiff towards the Pillar, see id., and
by “provid[ing] inadequate lighting,” such that the “height difference” between its base and the ground “was difficult . . . to observe,” see id., ¶ 9. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts a claim of negligence against Wal- Mart. Id. Wal-Mart denies these allegations and argues that Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall was “due to [her] own negligence.” ECF No. 12, at 5. Following the completion of discovery, see ECF No. 32, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment on the grounds that “there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact,” see ECF Nos. 35, at 1; 35-1, at 3-7. Wal-Mart argues that the available evidence “clearly” demonstrates that Plaintiff “was caused to trip and fall” because “she was not paying
attention to where she was walking as she was adjusting her mask.” ECF No. 35-1, at 6. Alternatively, Wal-Mart argues that Plaintiff “cannot prove that [her] fall was due to a dangerous or defective condition” of which Wal-Mart had notice. ECF No. 40, at 1, 3-4. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Wal-Mart points the court to (i) a one-page incident report from April 1, 2021, see ECF No. 35-3, wherein Plaintiff, in her “own words,” states that she “was adjusting her mask as she was walking and . . . tripped,” see ECF No. 35-1, at 2-3; (ii) a two-page deposition transcript, wherein Plaintiff states that she “put [her] mask on . . . before [she] went in,” see ECF No. 35-5, at 3; and (iii) surveillance video of the Store, see ECF No. 35-4, which, Wal-Mart argues, depicts Plaintiff “adjusting the cloth mask on her face” as she “turns . . to walk around the [Pillar] in the front of the [S]tore” and then “while still adjusting her mask . . . tripping,” see ECF No. 35-1, at 3.1 Plaintiff argues that Wal-Mart is “not entitled” to summary judgment “[d]ue to the existence of issues of material fact,” specifically regarding the surveillance video. ECF
No. 39, at 1. She points out that she “goes out of view” in the “grainy and blurry” video just as she trips, and that “it appears that” she “turned . . . to walk around” the Pillar after “adjusting the cloth mask on her face.” Id. at 4, 6 (emphasis omitted).
II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact is one that ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law’ and as to which ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Summary judgment must not be granted if “there is any [evidence] upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the [non-moving] party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251. When “‘assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Id. (quoting
1 Wal-Mart’s Statement of Material Facts is a list of these three Exhibits. ECF No. 35-2. Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir.1994). Notwithstanding, “a party who opposes summary judgment ‘cannot defeat the motion by relying on the allegations in [her] pleading, or on conclusory statements, or on mere assertions that affidavits supporting the motion are not credible.’” Vallas v. Walmart, Inc., No. 3:22-CV- 937 (OAW), 2025 WL 2719400, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Gottlieb v. Cnty
of Orange, 84 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1996)).
III. DISCUSSION “Under Connecticut law, a business owner owes its invitees a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition.” Id. (quoting Baptiste v. Better Val–U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 140 (2002)). “To carry a claim that a business owner has breached that duty, a plaintiff must show” (i) “‘the existence of a defect,’” (ii) “‘that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known about the defect,’” and (iii) “‘that such defect had existed for such a length of time that the
[defendant] should, in the exercise of reasonable care, have discovered it in time to remedy it.’” Id. (quoting Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 Conn. App. 619, 628 (2018)). Wal-Mart argues that the surveillance video “clearly shows” that Plaintiff “was caused to trip and fall . . . due to her own negligence.” ECF No. 35-1, at 6. The court disagrees. The video does depict Plaintiff wearing a mask, see ECF No. 35-4, at 1:01:10- 1:02:37, but it does not “clearly show[]” her “adjusting her mask” as she enters the Store, see ECF No. 35-1, at 6. The video does depict Plaintiff falling, see ECF No. 35-4, at 1:00:07-1:00:10, but it does not “clearly show[]” her “not paying attention to where she was walking” when she tripped, see ECF No. 35-1, at 6. It does not show Plaintiff tripping at all, actually, due to a pillar (which does not appear to be the Pillar at issue) obstructing the surveillance camera’s view. ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 6. Accordingly, the court cannot decide the cause of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall as a matter of law, based on the video.2 Wal-Mart also argues that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of “a specific defect” at the Store and, alternatively, that Plaintiff “cannot prove Wal-Mart had any
notice” of a specific defect. ECF No. 40, at 3-4. Again, the court disagrees.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CLARA SIKORSKI, ) Plaintiff, ) ) 3:22-cv-205-OAW v. ) ) WAL-MART REAL ESTATE ) BUSINESS TRUST, ET AL., ) Defendants. ) ) RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ECF NO. 35 THIS ACTION is brought by Plaintiff Clara Sikorski against Defendants Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., and Wal-Mart, Inc., (collectively, “Wal-Mart”). ECF No. 1-1. She alleges that she tripped, fell, and suffered various injuries at Wal-Mart’s location at 150 Barnum Avenue Cut-Off, in Stratford, Connecticut (hereinafter, the “Store”), on account of Wal-Mart’s negligence. Id., ¶¶ 5-9. Following the completion of discovery, see ECF No. 32, Wal-Mart filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, see ECF No. 35, which Plaintiff opposes, see ECF No. 39. The court carefully has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of law and the broader record in this case. See ECF Nos. 1-1, 12, 14, 15, 18, 35, 35-1, 35-2, 35-3, 35-4, 35-5, 39, 40. For all the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff tripped, fell, and suffered various injuries while attempting to enter the Store on April 1, 2021. ECF No. 1-1, ¶¶ 5-11. Because of the coronavirus pandemic, Plaintiff was wearing a cloth facemask at that time. ECF No. 39, at 4. Plaintiff alleges that her trip-and-fall was caused by “a raised portion of concrete colored similarly to the normal walking surface . . . around the base of a structural pillar” (hereinafter, the “Pillar”) near the Store’s entrance. ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 6. She further alleges that Wal-Mart “exacerbated” this “tripping hazard” by “creating a temporary walking lane using blue tape and makeshift bollards” to guide Plaintiff towards the Pillar, see id., and
by “provid[ing] inadequate lighting,” such that the “height difference” between its base and the ground “was difficult . . . to observe,” see id., ¶ 9. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts a claim of negligence against Wal- Mart. Id. Wal-Mart denies these allegations and argues that Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall was “due to [her] own negligence.” ECF No. 12, at 5. Following the completion of discovery, see ECF No. 32, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment on the grounds that “there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact,” see ECF Nos. 35, at 1; 35-1, at 3-7. Wal-Mart argues that the available evidence “clearly” demonstrates that Plaintiff “was caused to trip and fall” because “she was not paying
attention to where she was walking as she was adjusting her mask.” ECF No. 35-1, at 6. Alternatively, Wal-Mart argues that Plaintiff “cannot prove that [her] fall was due to a dangerous or defective condition” of which Wal-Mart had notice. ECF No. 40, at 1, 3-4. In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, Wal-Mart points the court to (i) a one-page incident report from April 1, 2021, see ECF No. 35-3, wherein Plaintiff, in her “own words,” states that she “was adjusting her mask as she was walking and . . . tripped,” see ECF No. 35-1, at 2-3; (ii) a two-page deposition transcript, wherein Plaintiff states that she “put [her] mask on . . . before [she] went in,” see ECF No. 35-5, at 3; and (iii) surveillance video of the Store, see ECF No. 35-4, which, Wal-Mart argues, depicts Plaintiff “adjusting the cloth mask on her face” as she “turns . . to walk around the [Pillar] in the front of the [S]tore” and then “while still adjusting her mask . . . tripping,” see ECF No. 35-1, at 3.1 Plaintiff argues that Wal-Mart is “not entitled” to summary judgment “[d]ue to the existence of issues of material fact,” specifically regarding the surveillance video. ECF
No. 39, at 1. She points out that she “goes out of view” in the “grainy and blurry” video just as she trips, and that “it appears that” she “turned . . . to walk around” the Pillar after “adjusting the cloth mask on her face.” Id. at 4, 6 (emphasis omitted).
II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A genuine issue of material fact is one that ‘might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law’ and as to which ‘a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.’” Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 787 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Summary judgment must not be granted if “there is any [evidence] upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the [non-moving] party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251. When “‘assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Id. (quoting
1 Wal-Mart’s Statement of Material Facts is a list of these three Exhibits. ECF No. 35-2. Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir.1994). Notwithstanding, “a party who opposes summary judgment ‘cannot defeat the motion by relying on the allegations in [her] pleading, or on conclusory statements, or on mere assertions that affidavits supporting the motion are not credible.’” Vallas v. Walmart, Inc., No. 3:22-CV- 937 (OAW), 2025 WL 2719400, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Gottlieb v. Cnty
of Orange, 84 F.3d 511, 518 (2d Cir. 1996)).
III. DISCUSSION “Under Connecticut law, a business owner owes its invitees a duty to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition.” Id. (quoting Baptiste v. Better Val–U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135, 140 (2002)). “To carry a claim that a business owner has breached that duty, a plaintiff must show” (i) “‘the existence of a defect,’” (ii) “‘that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known about the defect,’” and (iii) “‘that such defect had existed for such a length of time that the
[defendant] should, in the exercise of reasonable care, have discovered it in time to remedy it.’” Id. (quoting Bisson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 184 Conn. App. 619, 628 (2018)). Wal-Mart argues that the surveillance video “clearly shows” that Plaintiff “was caused to trip and fall . . . due to her own negligence.” ECF No. 35-1, at 6. The court disagrees. The video does depict Plaintiff wearing a mask, see ECF No. 35-4, at 1:01:10- 1:02:37, but it does not “clearly show[]” her “adjusting her mask” as she enters the Store, see ECF No. 35-1, at 6. The video does depict Plaintiff falling, see ECF No. 35-4, at 1:00:07-1:00:10, but it does not “clearly show[]” her “not paying attention to where she was walking” when she tripped, see ECF No. 35-1, at 6. It does not show Plaintiff tripping at all, actually, due to a pillar (which does not appear to be the Pillar at issue) obstructing the surveillance camera’s view. ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 6. Accordingly, the court cannot decide the cause of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall as a matter of law, based on the video.2 Wal-Mart also argues that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence of “a specific defect” at the Store and, alternatively, that Plaintiff “cannot prove Wal-Mart had any
notice” of a specific defect. ECF No. 40, at 3-4. Again, the court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges that the base of the Pillar was dangerous and defective because (i) it was the same color as the “normal walking surface” surrounding it, (ii) “blue tape and makeshift bollards” guided her towards it, and (iii) “inadequate lighting” made the “height difference” between it and the ground “difficult” to observe. ECF No. 1-1, ¶¶ 6-9. The blue tape, bollards, and lighting conditions at the time of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall are all visible in the surveillance video. ECF No. 35-4. Accordingly, it would be neither impossible nor unreasonable for a jury to find that the Pillar was a defect—at least in combination with the alleged temporary walking path and lighting conditions3 at the time of Plaintiff’s fall—
about which “Wal-Mart should have known.” ECF No. 39, at 8.
IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, it hereby is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED;
2 Nor can the court decide the cause of Plaintiff’s trip-and-fall as a matter of law based on the incident report and Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, as they offer arguably-contradictory statements. See ECF No. 35-3, at 2 (noting that Plaintiff “was adjusting[her]mask and as I was walking I trip[ped]”); 35-5, at 3 (noting that Plaintiff “put [her] mask on . . . before [she] went in. When [she] saw her [daughter] coming [she] put [her] mask on and started walking and then went in”). 3 However, the court notes that the incident allegedly took place around high noon. ECF No. 35-3, at 2. 2. The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Trial Memorandum on or before Friday, April 17, 2026, consistent with the undersigned’s Joint Trial Memorandum Instructions,4 after which the court will schedule a final pre-trial conference; 3. Given the age of this case and the nature of Plaintiff’s claim, the parties are REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference, and
the Clerk of Court respectfully is directed to please assign a Magistrate Judge for this purpose; AND 4. The parties are ADVISED that (absent resolution of this case during a settlement conference) they should be prepared to proceed to trial on or before May 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, on this 31st day of March, 2026.
/s/ OMAR A. WILLIAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 Such instructions are available online, at https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FINAL-JTM- Instructions-_02.16.2023-edits.pdf.