Compare and Contrast 1
Compare and Contrast
Brenda Vanchure and Daniel Vanchure
Vs.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
AND
John Dequinzio and Carole Dequinzio
Vs.
Gristedes Food, Inc.
Katie Kelsey
PRT 3520-001
University of Utah
Compare and Contrast 2
The cases of Vanchure vs. Wegman’s Food Markets, INC. and Dequinzio vs. Gristedes
Food, INC. are very similar but have contrasting results. The cases both involve an individual
that while shopping in a grocery store slipped on a substance on the floor and was injured. With
both cases, the individual sued the grocery store on claims of gross negligence. In Dequinzio vs.
Gristedes Food, INC., the judge granted the defendant a summary judgement dismissing the
case but in Vanchure vs. Wegman’s Food Markets, INC., the judge did not grant the defendants
request for a summary judgement. It is important to look at the details of both cases in order to
understand why these similar cases had contrasting results.
Brenda Vanchure and Daniel Vanchure
Vs.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.
2014
On June 11, 2011, Vanchure was shopping at Wegmans grocery store, located in WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania. Vanchure arrived to the store early that day and it was also stated that the
store was extremely busy. Instead of using a shopping cart or basket, Vanchure carried her
items towards the register at the front of the store. When Vanchure was near the front of the
store she slipped and fell causing her injury. “Vanchure also did not see any cones or wet floor
signs, nor did she see a mop or bucket at the spot where she fell and was unaware how long
the substance was on the floor prior to her fall.” (Vanchure v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.,
2014). It was only after she fell that she saw ahead of her an employee that was mopping the
floor next to a wet floor sign.
Compare and Contrast 3
After the fall, a store supervisor came to Vanchure very quickly and explained that there
had been a soda explosion and offered her medical attention, which she declined. While the
supervisor was walking Vanchure to customer service she almost slipped and fell again but was
caught by the store supervisor. At customer service Vanchure spoke with the manager which
provided her with a number to call if she needed medical attention but no notes or reports
were taken. Vanchure decided to sue Wegmans on the claim of negligence for compensation of
injuries sustained. In response to the claim, Wegmans motioned the judge for a summary
judgement to dismiss the case stating that they followed the standard of care required.
Vanchure argued against the summary judgement stating “that the area where she
slipped was not marked with a wet floor sign and that there was nothing visible in that area
indicating a hazardous condition…also that Wegmans had constructive notice of the spilled
soda.” (Vanchure v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 2014). Wegmans argued back that there was
a wet floor sign near the spill and an employee could visibly be seen mopping the spill. There
was also chance that the spill Vanchure slipped on could have been a different unknown spill
making Wegmans duty to warn void. Therefore, Wegmans believed that it had followed the
reasonable standard of care and duty to warn for Vanchure.
In reviewing the facts, the court stated that “there is evidence in the record that
Wegmans had actual notice of the "soda explosion." Yet, despite knowledge of this danger,
there were no cones or "wet floor" signs marking this hazardous condition in the location
where Mrs. Vanchure fell.” (Vanchure v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 2014). After Vanchure
fell, the supervisor told her that it was because of a soda explosion, suggesting that the store
was aware of the spill and the potential of injury. Also, Vanchure was unable to see the
Compare and Contrast 4
employee mopping the spill due to the crowding of other shoppers on that busy day. Because
of this, the court concluded that Wegmans failed to exercise reasonable care to protect
Vanchure from the slippery floor causing her injuries and denied the motion for summary
judgment.
John Dequinzio and Carole Dequinzio
Vs.
Gristedes Food, Inc.
2014
On September 23, 2008, Dequinzio was shopping at Gristedes Supermarket, located in
New York, New York. It was there that Dequinzio slipped and fell on a slippery substance caused
from an open bottle of liquid detergent that had spilled in an aisle of the store. Dequinzio
claimed that because of this he sustained physical injuries and decided to sue Gristedes on the
claims of gross negligence to compensate for the injuries he sustained. In response to the claim
made against Gristedes, the store motioned for a summary judgement to dismiss the case.
On the day Dequinzio fell, a stock clerk by the name of Velasquez was assigned to clean
up any spills that may happen in the store. Velasquez testified that the store manager informed
him of the spill about two minutes prior to Dequinzio slipping and falling. “Within one minute
after speaking with the store manager, Velasquez states that he placed two wet floor signs
around the area of the detergent spill in the aisle…and he was on his way back to the aisle with
a mop when plaintiff fell, claiming that he was gone from the aisle less than two minutes before
the accident occurred.”(Dequinzio v. Gristedes Food, Inc., 2014). Dequinzio did state that he
saw the wet floor sign, but it was only after he fell.
Compare and Contrast 5
Dequinzio testified “that he was on the ground "maybe five minutes" before the
manager of the supermarket and another employee came to see him.”(Dequinzio v. Gristedes
Food, Inc., 2014). After this, the store manager accompanied Dequinzio to the front where the
he filled out an incident report and offered Dequinzio medical attention, which he denied.
Because of the actions that were taken by Gristedes, the store believed that they were entitled
to a summary judgement dismissing the complaint. Gristedes argument for the summary
judgement was that “the record affirmatively shows that cleanup of the detergent was
underway at the time of plaintiff's accident. Specifically, defendants proffer that the
supermarket satisfied their duty to warn of a dangerous condition by leaving wet floor signs
near the area of the detergent spill, and plaintiff testified that he saw the sign after he fell.”
(Dequinzio v. Gristedes Food, Inc., 2014).
The plaintiff, Dequinzio, argued against the summary judgment stating that Gristedes
did not follow the duty to warn customers of potential hazards. He also stated that “there was
adequate time to clean up the spill, and the placement of a 6" sign was not apparent as he was
looking straight ahead and down the aisle.” (Dequinzio v. Gristedes Food, Inc., 2014). Duty to
warn is concept that a party may be held liable for damages caused because the party had the
opportunity to warn of danger and failed to do so. However, Gristedes did follow the duty to
warn by the placement of the wet floor sign and the fact that the cleanup of the spill was in
process. Because of this, the judge ruled in favor of Gristedes, granting the summary judgement
dismissing the complaint.
Similarities in these cases include both plaintiffs slipping on substances spilled on
supermarket floors, both defendants seeking a judgement summary to dismiss the case, and
Compare and Contrast 6
the presence of wet floor signs. Because in both cases the plaintiff slipped in a store, the
expectation would be that the cases had similar outcomes but this is not the case. The different
outcomes of the cases were not decided by the fact that the plaintiff slipped but rather the
preventive measures taken by the stores before the incidents occurred. Both defendants took
preventive measures by making attempts to clean the spills and by putting out wet floor signs.
It was in the placement of the wet floor signs that resulted in the dismissal of one case but not
the other.
In the case of Vanchure v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., the supervisor had knowledge
of the spill and an employee was in the process of cleaning it up. The problem came because
only a small part of the spill was marked with a wet floor sign, leaving an unmarked area where
Vanchure slipped and was injured. This allowed Vanchure to claim negligence on the part of
Wegmans for not taking reasonable care to protect her. In contrast, the case of Dequinzio v.
Gristedes Food, Inc., the manager had knowledge of spill and an employee marked the area
with a wet floor sign while getting the supplies need to clean the spill. Even though Dequinzio
claimed that he did not see the wet floor sign until after he fell, Gristedes still took the proper
actions in the duty to warn customers of the potential danger. Because of this, the judge
granted summary judgement in dismissing the claim of negligence. The difference came down
to the proper and thorough placement of wet floor signs.
Both defendants motioned for summary judgement to dismiss the case. Summary
judgment shall be granted "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." (Vanchure v.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., 2014). In the case of Dequinzio v. Gristedes Food, Inc., summary
Compare and Contrast 7
judgement was granted because Gristedes offered sufficient evidence that no triable issues
existed. The case of Vanchure v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., could not be granted due to the
evidence that Wegmans was negligent which made this case triable. These differences caused
the contrast in the outcomes of the two cases.
For personal application of these two cases, last semester in the Integrated Core I was
part of the risk management team for our final SEPPP. One of the areas that my team was most
concerned about was children slipping and getting hurt. This was important to think about
because one of our activities involved large amounts of water that had the potential to spill on
polished floor. This would cause a slipping hazard to the young children. We decided to have
one team member stationed at that activity for the duration to quickly clean up any spilt water
to avoid slipping. This procedure proved to work and the activity finished without injury,
despite the large quantities of water that was spilled.
In my opinion, I believe that the court made the right decision with these two cases.
One area was clearly marked with a wet floor sign while the other area was not. It is important
as a future professional in Parks, Recreation, and Tourism that you know and follow the risk
management procedures. As discussed in class, the two most important aspects of risk
management are to be alert to unsafe conditions and take reasonable and timely action when
you become aware of hazardous conditions. Something as simple as cleaning up a spill and
placing a wet floor sign could be the difference of whether a law suit is filed. By understanding
your role in risk management in your future career you can save the money and time of a law
suit and help your organization to thrive.
Compare and Contrast 8
References
VANCHURE v. WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC., Civil Action No. 3: CV-12-1303 (M.D. Pa. May 1,
2014).
DEQUINZIO v. GRISTEDES FOOD, INC., 2014 N.Y. Slip Op 31425 (Sup. Ct. 2014).