Facts

Virginia Lowe was shopping in the frozen food section of a 99 Cents Only Store when a freezer door came off its hinges, struck Lowe on the forehead, knocked Lowe to the ground, and fell on top of her. Thereafter, Lowe filed an action against 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC, Dover Corporation, Anthony, Inc. doing business as Anthony International, Hill Phoenix, Inc., National Cooler Corporation, and Display Rite, Inc.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the freezer contained design or manufacturing defects when it left the control of each defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the freezer door was defective and dangerous because it came off its hinges and the freezer did have the proper safeguards or mechanics to prevent the door from coming off its hinges.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions. Defendants argued that plaintiff could not establish any alleged defect because plaintiff's discovery responses demonstrated an absence of evidence. Specifically, defendants asserted that plaintiff repeated her allegations that "the subject freezer door unexpectedly fell off while plaintiff attempted to open it, which is an occurrence that would not normally occur in the absence of negligence by some or all of the defendants" without alleging any specific, evidence-based facts demonstrating a defect in the freezer door. Defendants also contended that, in response to interrogatories requesting any individuals or documents that supported plaintiff's contentions that either defendant was liable for plaintiff's injuries, plaintiff responded with a list of witnesses without specifying any particular facts or knowledge that those individuals possessed and a list of documents that were not related to any alleged defect or alleged negligent act of the defendants. Defendants further claimed that the assistant manager at the store at the time of the incident was not made aware of any issues regarding the freezer or refrigerator doors at the store. Defendants also asserted that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish that defendants breached any duty owed to plaintiff. Specifically, defendants stated that they did not install the subject equipment, were not contracted to maintain or repair the subject equipment at the store, and did not have control or possession of the premises at any time.

Result

Summary judgment was granted to defendants Hill Phoenix, Inc. and Anthony, Inc. doing business as Anthony International.