Costco Wholesale Corporation Prevails in Premises Liability Case

Annette Serna Et Al V. Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. Et Al

Case Background

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff Annette Serna filed a premises liability lawsuit against Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation alleging negligence and breach of duty of care. The case was initially filed in Orange County Superior Court. The Defendant moved the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The case was assigned to Judge Kenly Kiya Kato and referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early. [Case number: 8:22cv1510]

Cause

On August 21, 2020, Annette Serna, the Plaintiff, was shopping at Costco Wholesale Corporation in Orange County, California. While navigating the store, she unexpectedly tripped and fell. The cause of her fall was a dangerously placed pallet. This pallet was not open or obvious to her, creating a hazardous situation.

Injury

Due to the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff suffered injuries that affected her health, strength, and activity. These injuries caused her both mental and physical pain. As a result, she experienced significant nervous suffering as well. The allegations suggested that her injuries could lead to either temporary or permanent effects on her well-being.

Damages

As a result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff experienced emotional distress along with other mental injuries. The Defendant's reckless actions compelled her to seek medical care. Consequently, she faced a loss of income and earnings due to her condition.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s): Annette Serna
- Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Shabnam Sarani | Christina W Kim | Christopher T Aumais | John Ryan Gustafson

Defendant(s): Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Counsel for Defendant(s): James S. Morse | Douglas Michael DeGrave

Claims

Plaintiff alleged premises liability and general negligence against the Defendant. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant breached the duty of care it owed to the customers and negligently managed and maintained the premises which led to the fall.

Defense

The Defendant denied the claims of premises liability and negligence. In response, the defense presented several affirmative defenses. These included arguments for comparative negligence and the assumption of risk. They also cited intervening causes as a factor. Additionally, the defense argued that the danger was open and obvious.

Jury Verdict

On October 2, 2024, the jury delivered a defense verdict for the Defendants. The following day, the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato issued a judgment favoring the Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff was ordered to recover nothing. Consequently, the premises liability lawsuit was dismissed.

Court Documents:

Available upon request