A recent appellate court decision has upheld a significant judgment against a major retailer after a customer was injured by a falling fire extinguisher, raising questions about business owners’ responsibilities for store safety and proper legal procedures in personal injury cases. The ruling confirms that sufficient evidence existed for a jury to find the retailer responsible for creating or failing to address an unsafe condition that led to the customer’s injury.
The complaint was filed by Peter Krassner in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, naming Walmart as the defendant. The Appellate Division released its opinion on March 13, 2026, following oral arguments heard on January 29, 2026.
According to court documents, the incident occurred on February 23, 2018, when Krassner was shopping at a Walmart store in Hamilton. While backing up with his shopping cart in the personal care aisle to allow another customer to pass, he came into contact with a fire extinguisher mounted on a support column. The extinguisher fell from its harness onto his left foot, resulting in what was later diagnosed as complex regional pain syndrome. Surveillance footage captured the event, and both Walmart’s then-customer service manager and store manager testified that Krassner’s actions appeared natural and not inappropriate.
The placement of the fire extinguisher became central to the dispute. Testimony revealed it was installed on the side of a column facing into the narrower personal care aisle rather than toward the wider main aisle known as ‘Action Alley.’ This location partially obstructed passage through the aisle. The mounting mechanism consisted of a single strap held by a clasp; post-incident inspections found this harness to be ‘exceedingly easy to undo’ and ‘warped,’ though there was no direct evidence indicating how long it had been damaged or what caused it.
Walmart employees stated that monthly inspections were conducted and documented for fire extinguishers but daily hazard checks were not recorded unless an issue was observed at that time. Replacement mounting brackets were kept onsite due to routine wear and tear from store activity.
After an initial trial in May 2022 resulted in a verdict awarding Krassner $1,754,135 (later molded by comparative fault), Walmart appealed various rulings including denials of motions for new trial and directed verdicts. On appeal, some issues were affirmed while others led to remand for retrial solely on liability—not damages—after concerns arose about improper jury instructions regarding notice requirements under premises liability law.
At retrial, both parties presented their cases again with focus on whether Walmart had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition posed by either the placement or condition of the fire extinguisher’s mounting hardware. Krassner argued that both factors—the protruding placement into a narrow aisle and an easily disengaged strap—constituted hazards created or maintained by Walmart itself.
Walmart contended there was insufficient proof it had notice of any defect prior to the accident and challenged whether it could be held liable without such notice under applicable law. It also objected to specific jury instructions used at retrial—particularly Model Jury Charges (Civil), 5.20F(9), which states that if an owner creates an unsafe condition through its own acts or omissions, actual or constructive notice is not required for liability.
The trial court instructed jurors using both Model Jury Charges (Civil), 5.20F(8) (requiring proof of notice) and 5.20F(9) (notice not required if defendant created hazard). After deliberation, jurors found Walmart eighty percent at fault and Krassner twenty percent at fault; damages totaling $1,740,610.34 were awarded based on this apportionment plus stipulated medical expenses and pre-judgment interest.
On appeal from this outcome, Walmart argued again that there was no evidence it created or knew about any dangerous condition related specifically to defective mounting straps and asserted that instructing jurors with both charges was confusing and prejudicially improper—echoing concerns from earlier proceedings where use of mode-of-operation charges had been deemed reversible error.
The appellate panel rejected these arguments after reviewing trial testimony and legal standards governing negligence claims against business owners. Citing precedent including Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken Inc., they found sufficient evidence supported giving both instructions because factual disputes existed over whether Walmart’s decisions regarding placement constituted creation of an unsafe condition independent from mere failure to discover defects through inspection.
The opinion emphasizes: “We determine the trial court did not err in finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence…as to whether [the] condition and placement…was a dangerous condition,” noting testimony about frequent customer contact with fixtures and maintenance practices supporting possible constructive notice or direct creation of risk by management choices.
Ultimately affirming judgment for Krassner, the panel concluded: “There was ample evidence justifying the court’s instructing the jury on Model Jury Charges (Civil), 5.20F(9)…the charge…did not mislead the jury and was not capable of producing an unjust result.”
Attorneys involved included Matthew D. Vodzak representing Walmart (Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding LLC) and Brett R. Greiner representing Peter Krassner (Levinson Axelrod PA). The case identification is A-1500-24.
Source: A150024_Krassner_v_Walmart_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
