White v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. et al
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 5/9/2019. Dismissed as Moot 47 Second MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Hobart White, Granting 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. A separate judgment shall enter.cc:counsel (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-00034-GNS-LLK
HOBART WHITE,
Administrator of the Estate
of Cladie Hollis
PLAINTIFF
v.
WAL-MART STORES
EAST, L.P.
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment
(DN 32). For the reasons provided below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This is a premises liability action brought by Plaintiff Hobart White (“Plaintiff”) to recover
damages for injuries sustained as the result of a slip-and-fall by Decedent Cladie Hollis
(“Decedent”) while in Defendant’s store in McCracken County, Kentucky, on September 1, 2016.
(Compl. ¶¶ 4-9, DN 1-2). Plaintiff alleges Decedent tripped over an upturned rug and that
Defendant and its agents were negligent by failing to keep the premises in a clean and safe
condition. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8). Decedent died of unrelated drug intoxication on March 16, 2017.
(Def.’s Mot. Summ J. Ex. 2, ¶ 9, DN 32-2). Plaintiff, as Administrator of the Estate, filed the
present action in McCracken Circuit Court on November 27, 2017. (Compl. 1) On March 2, 2018,
Defendant removed the matter to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (Notice Removal ¶
1, DN 1).
Discovery produced a store video recording of the accident showing Decedent turn from
an aisle onto two mats in front of an ice machine. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 2, at 59:51-59, DN
32-2 [hereinafter Video]). While walking across the two mats, Decedent can be seen raising her
hand to the side of her head. (Video 59:56-58). After taking three or four steps off the second rug
onto the tiled floor, Decedent collapses. (Video 59:59-1:00:02). The video does not depict an
upturned rug, any foreign substances, or any other dangerous conditions on the floor. The video
shows that Decedent remained on the floor while she was attended to by customers and Wal-Mart
staff before emergency medical services arrived and transported her from the store on a gurney at
11:32 a.m. (Video 1:00:02-1:18:06).
In its motion, Defendant contends Plaintiff has failed to present evidence necessary to
support her claim. Specifically, Defendant provides “[t]here is no genuine issue as to the material
fact that the [P]laintiff can produce no evidence that [Decedent] encountered a foreign substance
or other dangerous condition on [Defendant’s] premises that caused her fall.” (Def.’s Mem. Supp.
Mot. Summ. J. 6, DN 32-1 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.]). Moreover, [t]here is no evidence the
[D]efendant’s premises were not in a reasonably safe condition for the use of business
invitees. . . .” (Def.’s Mot. 6).
II.
JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as is between . . . citizens of different
States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether there is
any genuine issue of material fact that would preclude entry of judgment for the moving party as
2
a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of stating
the basis for the motion and identifying evidence in the record that demonstrates an absence of a
genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the
moving party satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must then produce specific evidence
proving the existence of a genuine dispute of fact for trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
While the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party, the non-moving party must do more than merely show the existence of some “metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986) (citation omitted). Rather, the non-moving party must present specific facts proving
that a genuine factual dispute exists by “citing to particular parts of the materials in the record” or
by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute. . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [nonmoving party’s] position will be insufficient” to overcome summary judgment. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 252.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Since 2003, Kentucky courts have applied a burden shifting analysis to slip and fall claims.
Martin v. Mekanhart Corp., 113 S.W.3d 95, 98 (Ky. 2003). Under this approach, an invitee may
avoid summary judgment if:
(1) he or she had an encounter with a foreign substance or other dangerous
condition on the business premises; (2) the encounter was a substantial factor in
causing the accident and the customer’s injuries; and (3) by reason of the presence
of the substance or condition, the business premises were not in a reasonably safe
condition for the use of business invitees.
3
Id. (citing Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 431, 435-36 (Ky. 2003)). If the invitee
demonstrates these elements, the burden shifts to the proprietor to show it was not negligent. Id.
In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that Decedent encountered a
foreign substance or other dangerous condition on Defendant’s premises that caused her to fall.
There is also no evidence that Defendant’s premises were not in a reasonably safe condition for
invitees. As Defendant points out, “[a]ll the records reflects is an idiopathic fall by [Decedent], a
fall with an unknown cause.” (Def.’s Mot. 6).
In Lanier, the Kentucky Supreme Court recognized that a proprietor is not “an insurer
against all accidents on the premises.” Lanier, 99 S.W.3d at 437 (quoting Safeway Stores, Inc. v.
Smith, 658 P.2d 255, 258 (Colo. 1983)). Instead, “[t]he proprietor is guilty of negligence only if
he fails to use reasonable care under the circumstances to discover the foreseeable dangerous
condition and to correct it or warn customers of its existence.” Id. (quoting Smith, 658 P.2d at
258).
Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence that Decedent encountered a foreign substance or
other dangerous condition on Defendant’s premises. Therefore, under Kentucky’s slip-and-fall
analysis, Plaintiff has failed to produce evidence shifting the burden to Defendant to prove the
absence of negligence. Martin, 113 S.W.3d at 98 (citation omitted). Accordingly, Defendant’s
motion is granted.1
1
In addition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, now pending on the Court’s docket is
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. (DN 47). Although the Court would be
inclined to grant the motion because Plaintiff has failed to assist counsel in responding to
Defendant’s present motion to dismiss, the Court will instead dismiss the motion to withdraw as
moot in light of its decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.
4
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 32) is GRANTED, and the
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Withdraw (DN 47) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
May 9, 2019
cc:
counsel of record
5
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?