Therefore, the Virginia law applicable to slip-and-fall cases governs this case. Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *4 (W.D. Va. January 18, 2012). III.
Therefore, the Virginia law applicable to slip-and-fall cases governs this case. Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *4 (W.D. Va. January 18, 2012). The parties agree that, on the date in question, Plaintiff was Wal-Mart's invitee.
Therefore, the Virginia law applicable to slip-and-fall cases governs this case. Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *4 (W.D. Va. January 18, 2012). III. DISCUSSION
And in Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., the plaintiff pointed to the "large quantity and area of the water, suggesting that the water must have accumulated over a significant period of time." No. 4:11-cv-00008, 2012 WL 135284, at *8 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012).
Thus, Ware's knowledge of icy conditions at one end of the parking lot does not imply actual knowledge of an ice patch at the other end of the lot. See Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., 4:11-cv-00008, 2012 WL 135284, at *6 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012) (finding that awareness of dangerous conditions in the parking lot was insufficient to establish actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous conditions in the store's entranceway).
“Where the premises owner's own affirmative conduct causes the unsafe condition, notice of the condition is imputed to the owner provided the danger is reasonably foreseeable.” Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *5 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012); see Memco Stores, Inc. v. Yeatman, 232 Va. 50, 55 (1986) (holding that “[i]f an ordinarily prudent person, given the facts and circumstances [the defendant] knew or should have known, could have foreseen the risk of danger resulting from such circumstances, [the defendant] had a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid the genesis of the danger”).
Indeed, Virginia courts and those applying Virginia law have long held that a plaintiff who trips over an open and obvious hazard is contributorily negligent as a matter of law. See, e.g., Bishop v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 32 Fed.Appx. 687, 689 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); Roberson v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-312, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25187, at *6-7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2022); Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enters., No. 4:11-cv-00008, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5345, at *36 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012); Cameron v. K Mart Corp., No. 3:09cv00081, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76224, at *8-9 (W.D. Va. July 28, 2010); England v. Food Lion, LLC, No. 6:05-cv-00028, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20025, at *6 (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2006); Tazewell Supply Co., 189 S.E.2d at 349-50; Scott v. City of Lynchburg, 399 S.E.2d 809, 810 (Va. 1991). These courts have generally concluded that solid tripping hazards, including boxes, containers, and pallets in store aisles, constitute open and obvious hazards as a matter of law.
“Where the premises owner's own affirmative conduct causes the unsafe condition, notice of the condition is imputed to the owner provided the danger is reasonably foreseeable.” Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *5 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012) (Kiser, J.) (citing Harrison v. The Kroger Co., 737 F.Supp.2d 554, 557 (W.D. Va. 2010) (Urbanski, J.)). “In the absence of evidence showing some affirmative conduct of the defendant caused the dangerous condition, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.”
She did so at her own peril, and these actions bar her recovery in this case. See Dale, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6664, at *9 ("Here, Dale knew the curb was there, and should have been aware of the risk of pushing a loaded shopping cart over a curb."); Joseph v. Target Stores, Inc., No. 1:19CV614, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115071, at *8 (E.D. Va. June 30, 2020) ("Even when construing the evidence most favorably to Plaintiff, as the Court must, the Court finds that the puddle was 'open and obvious' and that Plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for her own safety."); Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enters., No. 4:11CV8, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5345, at *29 (W.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012) ("A plaintiff who slips and falls as a result of an open and obvious danger is guilty of contributory negligence."). C. Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence
Therefore, the Virginia law applicable to slip-and-fall cases governs this case. Logan v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., No. 4:11-cv-8, 2012 WL 135284, at *4 (W.D. Va. January 18, 2012). III.