Bruce Bunting v. District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC

── Bruce Bunting v. District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 19, 2025 Decided April 14, 2026 No. 24-7124 BRUCE BUNTING AND JESSIE BRINKLEY, APPELLANTS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CVS PHARMACY, LLC, APPELLEE Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-00766) Jacob M. Lebowitz argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants. Jessica L. Smith argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief were Matthew W. Naparty and Diane V. D’Aiutolo. Alexandra M. Monteforte entered an appearance. Before: HENDERSON and RAO, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.  2 RAO, Circuit Judge: In this slip and fall case, the district court granted summary judgment to CVS. Because the plaintiffs created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the walkway outside the store was dangerously slippery, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claim. We affirm, however, summary judgment for CVS on the negligence per se claim. Accordingly, we vacate in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. On the morning of Christmas Eve, Bruce Bunting fell hard as he exited a CVS store in the District of Columbia. The surface he slipped on was covered in a mix of salt (or some de- icing material) and water. Photographs taken shortly after his fall captured the walkway’s wet condition, and there is no indication the walkway was icy. As a result of his fall, Bunting suffered a significant ankle injury. Bunting and his wife filed suit against District of Columbia CVS Pharmacy, LLC, in D.C. Superior Court alleging negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium under D.C. law. 1 To support their negligence claim, the Buntings advanced two primary theories: first, that CVS failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the walkway was not dangerously slippery, and second, that CVS failed to warn Bunting of the hazard. The Buntings also maintained they could establish negligence per se because CVS’s maintenance of the walkway 1 The Buntings do not dispute their loss of consortium claim is derivative, requiring dismissal if their negligence claim does not survive summary judgment.  3 violated D.C. municipal safety regulations. CVS timely removed the case to federal district court. The Buntings and CVS obtained expert reports to support their positions. The Buntings’ first report was from Gregory Harrison, a registered professional civil engineer. Their second was from Lisa Rose, a certified expert in snow and ice management. CVS relied primarily on the expert testimony of Alexandra Maddox, a mechanical and biomedical engineer. The experts focused on the walkway’s static coefficient of friction (“COF”)—a standard measure where lower values indicate a more slippery surface. The parties agreed the applicable standard of care requires that walkways be maintained with a COF at or above 0.50. The expert testimony produced by both parties demonstrated that the walkway may have had a COF below 0.50 when wet. The Buntings’ expert Harrison indicated the walkway outside the CVS was dangerously slippery when wet, with a COF below the 0.50 standard of care. He explained that “Bunting’s type of fall injury incident simply could not have happened unless the walkway surface was very slippery and far below” a COF of 0.50. In his deposition, he emphasized the case “was just not a close call.” CVS’s expert similarly produced field notes indicating that a portion of the walkway near where Bunting fell had a COF of 0