In a recent ruling, the New York Supreme Court in Warren County dismissed a slip and fall lawsuit against Dollar General, affecting the plaintiff, Thomas Devol, who claimed he was injured due to unsafe conditions in the store. The court determined that Devol could not establish the cause of his fall, which is a critical element in premises liability cases.
The case, Devol v. Dolgencorp of N.Y. Inc., Index No. EF2020-68287, was decided on March 20, 2026, by Judge Amy N. Quinn. This ruling is significant as it underscores the importance of proving causation in slip and fall cases, which can set a precedent for future claims against businesses regarding unsafe premises.
Background
Thomas Devol filed the lawsuit against Dolgencorp of New York Inc., also known as Dollar General, after he fell inside one of their stores in Chester, New York, on September 19, 2017. Devol claimed that the store's failure to maintain a safe environment led to his injuries. He sought to amend his complaint to include punitive damages based on a 2024 Department of Labor report that criticized Dollar General's business practices.
The case progressed through the legal system, with Devol's attorneys from Holon Law Partners and Sanford Rosenblum, P.C. representing him. The defendant, Dollar General, was represented by Smith, Sovick Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C. The court heard oral arguments on the motions in September 2025, after the case was reassigned to Judge Quinn in June 2025.
The Ruling
The court ruled in favor of Dollar General, granting their motion for summary judgment and dismissing Devol's complaint. Judge Quinn stated, "Without the vital element of causation having been demonstrated by the record, defendant has established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment." The court emphasized that Devol's inability to identify the cause of his fall was a significant flaw in his case.
During his deposition, Devol admitted that he did not know what caused him to fall. He described the weather conditions as rainy and windy but could not confirm whether water on the floor contributed to his fall. Judge Quinn noted that Devol's testimony was filled with conjecture and lacked critical observations that would establish a dangerous condition at the time of the incident.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for future slip and fall cases. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to provide clear evidence of causation in order to succeed in their claims. The court's decision highlights that mere speculation or conjecture is insufficient to prove liability in premises liability cases.
The dismissal of Devol's case may deter other potential plaintiffs from pursuing similar claims without strong evidence. Additionally, this ruling could influence how businesses approach safety measures and maintenance in their establishments to avoid potential lawsuits.
What's Next
Devol may have the option to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.