Photo: Gary Lewis.

A federal judge has ruled there is sufficient evidence to allow a lawsuit to proceed alleging Dollar Tree knew about a potentially dangerous detergent spill in one of its stores and had time to clean it before it allegedly caused a slip and fall.

Dollar Tree had filed a motion for summary judgment in plaintiff Gregory Nelson's personal injury lawsuit against the retailer, however, U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the lawsuit could move forward.

According to Slomsky's opinion, Nelson, 57, slipped and fell on laundry detergent at the Sharon Hill Dollar Tree store in September 2016. He fell forward and sustained “several serious and permanent injuries” to his knees, legs, hip and lower back.

Nelson testified that after he fell, he overheard a store cashier tell an EMT and police that a customer had complained about the spill 10 minutes prior to Nelson's fall. He sued and alleged that Dollar Tree failed to keep its store in a safe condition.

Dollar Tree argued the only evidence that Dollar Tree should have been on notice is inadmissible hearsay.

“The statement made by the customer of the Dollar Tree to the cashier informing her of detergent on the floor is not barred by the rule against hearsay. This is so, because the statement can be viewed in one of two ways: (1) as a statement to prove notice on the part of the defendant, or (2) as a statement constituting a present sense impression, which is an exception to the hearsay rule,” Slomsky said. “In opposing summary judgment, plaintiff argues the first viewpoint—that the customer's statement is admissible because it is not being offered for its truth but is only being introduced to prove that defendant had notice of the detergent spill prior to plaintiff's accident. Given this use of the statement, plaintiff argues it is not hearsay as defined under Rule 801(c). The court agrees.”

Slomsky said that the statement made by the Dollar Tree employee to police and EMTs is also admissible.

“Upon consideration of the Dollar Tree cashier's statement, it is clear that there exists genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether defendant had actual notice of the detergent spill and, if so, whether defendant breached its duty to plaintiff by failing to remedy the spill within a reasonable time frame,” Slomsky said. “These are questions for the factfinder to decide and, for this reason, summary judgment is not warranted.”

Nelson's attorney, Jason Manus of Kwartler Manus, said in an email that Slomsky ”made the correct ruling. I thought the motion for summary judgment was largely without merit, thankfully the judge agreed.”

Marc Perry of Post & Schell represents Dollar Tree and declined to comment.