Reginald Ray v. Food Lion, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00470-CMH-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999962428]. [16-1149]
Appeal: 16-1149
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/04/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1149
REGINALD DONALD RAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FOOD LION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00470-CMH-JFA)
Submitted:
November 1, 2016
Decided:
November 4, 2016
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hailu, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS HAILU, PLLC, Annandale,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jared A. Warren, BRITT & BYRNE, PLLC,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1149
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/04/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Reginald
granting
Donald
summary
Ray
judgment
appeals
in
the
favor
district
of
the
court’s
Appellee
on
order
Ray’s
claim of negligence arising from his falling on the Appellee’s
premises.
We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment, viewing facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party.
Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual
City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 435 (4th Cir. 2011).
Summary
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine
dispute
as
to
any
material
fact
and
the
movant
is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a).
unless
“‘[T]here
is
no
issue
for
trial
there
is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
return a verdict for that party.’”
434 (quoting
Anderson
v.
Liberty
Newport News, 650 F.3d at
Lobby,
Inc.,
477
U.S.
242,
249-50 (1986)).
Under Virginia law, “[t]o establish actionable negligence,
[Ray] had the burden to show the existence of a legal duty, a
breach
damage.”
of
the
duty,
and
proximate
causation
resulting
in
Atrium Unit Owners Ass’n v. King, 585 S.E.2d 545, 548
(Va. 2003).
Food Lion owed Ray the “duty to exercise ordinary
care toward [him] as its invitee upon its premises.”
Colonial
Stores Inc. v. Pulley, 125 S.E.2d 188, 190 (Va. 1962).
“When an
invitee is injured because of some foreign substance or object
2
Appeal: 16-1149
Doc: 27
Filed: 11/04/2016
Pg: 3 of 3
on the floor of the premises the owner or occupant is not liable
unless it can be shown that he had actual knowledge of the
presence thereof or that in the exercise of reasonable care he
should have known of its presence and failed in his duty to
remove it.”
Gauldin v. Va. Winn-Dixie, Inc., 370 F.2d 167, 169
(4th Cir. 1966) (applying Virginia law).
“[C]onstructive
knowledge
or
notice
of
a
defective
condition of a premise or a fixture may be shown by evidence
that the defect was noticeable and had existed for a sufficient
length
of
time
to
charge
defective condition.”
(Va. 1993).
its
possessor
with
notice
of
its
Grim v. Rahe, Inc., 434 S.E.2d 888, 890
“Hence, if the evidence fails to show when a defect
occurred on the premises, the plaintiff has not made out a prima
facie case.”
Id.
Here, the district court correctly concluded
that Ray failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence
because he failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the
Appellee
had
actual
or
constructive
notice
of
the
alleged
dangerous condition.
Accordingly,
dispense
with
contentions
are
we
oral
affirm
the
argument
adequately
district
because
presented
in
court’s
the
the
facts
order.
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?