Premises-liability suit from North Little Rock Dollar General removed to federal court

Records show a premises-liability lawsuit connected to a February incident at a North Little Rock Dollar General store was removed to the U.S. Eastern District of Arkansas and assigned case number 4:26-cv-00208 on February 26, 2026. The federal docket lists the caption as Richardson v. Dolgencorp LLC; the filing record available to reporters is truncated and does not provide the plaintiff’s first name or the underlying state-court docket referenced in the removal.

The same February 26, 2026 filing date produced a separate complaint against Dolgencorp, LLC in Indiana Superior Court, Lake County. That case is Germann Williams v. Dolgencorp, LLC, case 45D10-2602-CT-000227, filed February 26, 2026 with plaintiff counsel listed as Schiller Law Office LLC. The Germann Williams case is described in the state docket summary as a personal injury, property and premises liability, slip-and-fall negligence claim alleging a hazardous rack condition without warning signs that resulted in severe injuries requiring ongoing medical treatment.

The Richardson removal joins a long pattern of slip-and-fall and premises-liability litigation against Dolgencorp, LLC and affiliated Dollar General entities. In Mobile County, Alabama, Deborah Revette filed a premises-liability action on Jan. 23, 2013; Dolgencorp moved for summary judgment on Sept. 24, 2013 arguing no actual or constructive knowledge of detergent on the floor, but Judge Michael Youngpeter denied the motion on Dec. 20, 2013 and the matter proceeded to a jury trial before Judge James C. Wood. Plaintiff counsel Robert L. Mitchell and Lucy E. Tufts presented expert testimony and argued Dollar General’s inspection practices were inadequate. Mitchell said, “The evidence proved that Dollar General’s safety policies are inadequate and outdated. Our hope is that the jury’s verdict will motivate the company to implement changes that will make its stores safe for all customers. Deborah’s injury was a preventable injury that, unfortunately, has dramatically changed her life.”

Other reported cases highlight the recurring evidentiary fights that often decide these suits. In a Davidson County matter, Mr. Alcantar documented the scene with photographs taken “[w]ithin a minute or two,” and referenced a store office book of operating procedures: “[Dollar General] has developed and maintains in its store office, a large book of” policies. Dollar General defenses in these and other files have repeatedly rested on lack of actual or constructive notice and on documentation of scheduled inspections.

Appeals and rulings show mixed results for plaintiffs. In the Fifth Circuit appeal Smiths v. DG Louisiana, L.L.C. and Dolgencorp, L.L.C., an incident on March 25, 2018 at Dollar General store 10933 in Erwinville, Louisiana involved employee Brandon Shipley, an inspection at about 1:45 PM, scattered dog food and a slip on a box of roach bait; the plaintiffs lost at trial and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In Pennsylvania, a Lackawanna County judge, Terrence R. Nealon, denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment in a vestibule slip-and-fall arising in April 2022, leaving factual questions for trial.

The Richardson removal and the Germann Williams filing reinforce the same contested issues: how long a hazard existed, what inspections were performed and documented, and whether store practices met a duty of care. The federal docket for 4:26-cv-00208 and the Germann Williams complaint will be necessary to see plaintiff allegations, counsel identification, and any evidence alleged in the North Little Rock matter. These filings continue a string of suits that turn on inspection schedules, Daily Planner entries, photographic timing and whether defendants had actual or constructive notice of store hazards.