Freidig v. Target Corporation

Carla Freidig (plaintiff) slipped and fell in a checkout lane at a Target Corporation (defendant) store. After the fall, Freidig filed a guest incident report stating she was injured after slipping on a puddle. Target investigated Freidig’s report and took a formal statement from Sarah Raemisch, a Target employee, who stated that she had walked through that checkout lane approximately 10 to 15 minutes before Freidig but had not noticed, or looked for, a puddle. Target’s company policy was to preserve security camera footage for the 20 minutes before and after any reported accident. However, Target only preserved footage of Freidig’s accident starting six seconds before her fall. The preserved footage did not show Raemisch’s walkthrough or show how the puddle formed. Because Target did not preserve the footage leading up to Freidig’s fall, it was lost, and no backups existed. Freidig sued Target under Wisconsin’s safe-place statute, arguing that Target (1) failed to cure an unsafe condition in the checkout line about which Target had actual or constructive notice and (2) intentionally lost security camera footage relevant to her accident. Target moved for summary judgment, arguing that (a) Freidig could not show it had notice of the puddle and (b) it did not have a duty to preserve the relevant security footage without actual notice Freidig intended to sue.