Duration-Based Constructive Notice in Premises Liability: Video Surveillance Creates Triable Issue

Introduction

This commentary examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Reyna Cruz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 24-1843 (7th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025), which reversed a grant of summary judgment in a slip-and-fall negligence case. Plaintiff-appellant Reyna Cruz slipped on what she alleges was a spilled smoothie in a Costco food court and sustained serious injuries. The district court had concluded that Costco lacked constructive notice of the spill, so it could not be held negligent as a matter of law. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that evidence—particularly a 28-minute surveillance video showing no prior cleanup or spill event—created genuine issues of material fact about how long the smoothie had been on the floor and whether Costco, exercising ordinary care, should have discovered it. The case was therefore remanded for trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, reviewed de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Costco. Under Illinois premises liability law, a store owes visitors a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Liability for a foreign substance on the floor requires proof that the store had constructive notice—i.e., it knew or should have known of the hazard in time to remedy it. The district court held that Cruz produced no evidence that a smoothie spill had been on the floor long enough for Costco to discover it before her fall. The Seventh Circuit reversed. It concluded that:

Cruz presented direct and circumstantial evidence of a smoothie spill (incident report, employee cleanup, “wet floor” sign, her own observation of a pink substance).
A 28-minute slice of surveillance footage showing no spill or cleanup before the accident permitted a reasonable inference that the smoothie was on the floor for at least that long.
Whether a substance remained on the floor for a sufficient time to impose constructive notice is a jury question, absent a conclusive time limit under Illinois law.

Because these facts gave rise to a genuine dispute over whether Costco, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered and cleaned up the spill, summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision leaned heavily on Illinois authority and prior Seventh Circuit rulings concerning constructive notice:

Hayes v. Bailey, 80 Ill. App. 3d 1027 (1980) – Defines constructive notice as actual knowledge or notice inferred from the duration of a dangerous condition.
Piotrowski v. Menard, Inc., 842 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2016) – Describes two paths to constructive notice: (a) the defect existed long enough that ordinary care would reveal it, or (b) it was part of a recurring pattern.
Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 770 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2014) – Upheld summary judgment where the plaintiff’s testimony showed a spill had been on the floor “only a few minutes,” insufficient to infer constructive notice.
Reid v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 545 F.3d 479 (7th Cir. 2008) – Affirmed summary judgment where a manager’s inspection ten minutes before the accident established an upper time limit on the spill’s presence.
Heider v. DJG Pizza, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181173 – Reversed summary judgment where circumstantial evidence indicated water had remained undetected for an indeterminate, reasonable span.
Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 862 F.2d 119 (7th Cir. 1988) – Found constructive notice from repeated spills and lack of cleanup until evening, illustrating the “pattern” theory.
Newsom-Bogan v. Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers, 2011 IL App (1st) 092860 – Held that a plaintiff’s uncorroborated testimony about grease on the floor can create a jury question, especially when supported by circumstantial indicators.
Others: Payne v. Pauley, Peterson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Hresil v. Sears, Ruda v. Jewel Food Stores, Nicholson v. St. Anne Lanes, Perminas v. Montgomery Ward (each illustrating timing or pattern analyses).

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in several steps:

Standard of Review: Summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing all facts and inferences in the non-movant’s favor.
Duty and Constructive Notice: Under Illinois law, a business owes invitees a duty to maintain safe premises. Constructive notice may be shown either by evidence that (a) a hazard existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it, or (b) it was part of a recurring pattern unaddressed within a reasonable time.
Existence of the Spill: Cruz introduced both direct (incident report, cleanup activities, her own observation) and indirect evidence (gestures in the video, mop and “wet floor” sign) that a smoothie was on the floor.
Duration Evidence via Surveillance Video: A fixed 28-minute segment showed no spill or cleanup, supporting a jury inference that the spill predated that window. Unlike Zuppardi (a few minutes) or Reid (manager inspection ten minutes prior), here the floor condition could have existed for at least 28 minutes with no “upper limit” imposed by contemporaneous inspection.
Jury Question: Given the absence of any Illinois rule fixing a minimum duration for constructive notice, the reasonableness of Costco’s inspection regimen and the time the spill remained undiscovered present classic fact issues for a jury.
Pattern Theory Rejected: Although evidence of other food court spills existed, Cruz introduced no proof that Costco routinely failed to clean them or ignored them for unreasonable periods. Hence, no “recurring incident” inference was warranted.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces several important points in premises-liability jurisprudence:

No Bright-Line Minutes Rule: Illinois law does not impose a fixed time threshold (e.g., 5 or 10 minutes) that automatically bars constructive notice claims.
Power of Surveillance Evidence: Video footage can be a critical tool to establish how long a hazard remained unaddressed, creating a jury issue where none existed before.
Fact-Intensive Inquiry: Courts should be cautious about granting summary judgment when the evidence leaves open reasonable inferences about a business’s inspection practices and the duration of a hazard.
Guidance for Retailers: Merchants should document regular and frequent floor-patrol protocols and cleanup logs, especially in self-service or high-traffic areas, to guard against constructive-notice claims.
Precedential Value: Future slip-and-fall cases in the Seventh Circuit (and under Illinois law) will likely cite Cruz v. Costco for the proposition that surveillance can create genuine disputes of timing sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Below are concise explanations of key legal terms used in the decision:

Constructive Notice: Legal theory by which a business is deemed to know about a hazard if it existed long enough that reasonable care and inspection would have discovered it.
Summary Judgment: A procedural device to resolve cases without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists. Courts view all evidence and draw all inferences in the non-movant’s favor.
De Novo Review: Appellate review of legal decisions (like summary judgment) without deference to the lower court’s conclusions.
Premises Liability: Area of law imposing a duty on property owners to keep premises safe for invitees and licensees.
Pattern Theory: One route to constructive notice: showing a recurring, uncorrected hazard that should have prompted remedial measures.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Cruz v. Costco underscores that questions about how long a hazardous substance remained undiscovered and whether a business exercised ordinary care are quintessentially for the jury. By treating a 28-minute surveillance window as sufficient circumstantial proof of constructive notice, the Court reaffirmed that no automatic “minutes-on-the-floor” cutoff exists under Illinois law. Retailers should maintain robust inspection and cleanup records, while plaintiffs should seek all available timing evidence—especially video—to create genuine issues of fact and avoid premature dismissal of their claims.