Smith et al v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L L C
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM RULING stating reasons for denying 20 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Larry Smith, Linda Faye Smith. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 1/03/2014. (crt,Yocum, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
LINDA FAYE SMITH AND LARRY
SMITH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2368
VERSUS
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
WAL-MART LOUISIANA, LLC
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
RULING
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 20] filed by
Plaintiffs Linda Faye Smith (“Mrs. Smith”) and Larry Smith. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’
Motion is DENIED.
I.
INTRODUCTION
On September 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the above captioned suit against Defendant, Wal-
Mart Louisiana LLC (“Wal-Mart”), in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita,
State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs seek recovery for serious personal injuries and damages sustained by
Mrs. Smith following her May, 2012, collision with a row of shopping carts1 being pushed by
Clifford Starr, a Wal-Mart employee. Plaintiffs also seek recovery for damages incurred by Larry
Smith as a result of his wife’s injuries. [Doc. No. 1].
On July 30, 2013, the case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C. § 1332. [Doc. No. 1].
On November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No.
1
Carts were stacked into rows outside of the store, pushed by employees into the store
through an opening on the side, and emerged inside the store near the entrance.
20] on the issue of liability. Plaintiffs argue that “[t]he sole and proximate cause of the accident and
injuries to [Mrs. Smith] was the negligence of Wal-Mart’s employee.” [Doc. No. 20, p. 1].
On December 3, 2013, Wal-Mart filed an Opposition [Doc. No. 23] contending that
comparative fault is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
On December 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. No. 26], and Wal-Mart filed a SurReply [Doc. No. 27] on December 23, 2013.
II.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The moving
party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion by identifying portions
of the record which highlight the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Topalian v. Ehrmann,
954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir. 1992). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence
would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence
is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
If the moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party
to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v. Apache Corp., 19
F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The nonmoving party must show more than “some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 586 (1986). In evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court must accept the
2
evidence of the nonmovant as credible and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 255.
B.
Analysis
Mrs. Smith asserts a negligence cause of action under Louisiana Civil Code article 2315. She
claims that Wal-Mart is liable for her injuries because “[e]very act whatever of man that causes
damage to another obliges him by whose fault it happened to repair it.” LA . CIV . CODE art. 2315.
Conversely, Wal-Mart asserts the affirmative defense of comparative fault. Louisiana Civil Code
article 2323 addresses comparative fault as follows:
A. In any action for damages where a person suffers injury, death, or
loss, the degree or percentage of fault of all persons causing or
contributing to the injury, death, or loss shall be determined . . . . If a
person suffers injury, death, or loss as the result partly of his own
negligence and partly as a result of the fault of another person or
persons, the amount of damages recoverable shall be reduced in
proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to
the person suffering the injury, death, or loss.
LA . CIV . CODE art. 2323.
“Ordinarily, the determination of whether negligence exists in a particular case is a question
of fact; therefore, cases involving a question of negligence ordinarily are not appropriate for
summary judgment. This principle extends to a question of comparative fault as well.” Pruitt v.
Nale, 45,483 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/10), 46 So. 3d 780, 783. But see Rance v. Harrison Co., Inc.,
31,503 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1/20/99), 737 So. 2d 806, 810 (“Where reasonable minds cannot differ, the
question of contributory or comparative negligence is a question of law that may be resolved by
summary judgment.”). In other words, “a partial summary judgment may not be granted for purposes
of determining a particular element of liability such as . . . the fault of one party where such a
3
determination is not completely dispositive of the question of liability between the parties concerning
that claim and where . . . comparative fault remain[s] unresolved.” Williams v. City of New Orleans,
637 So. 2d 1130, 1132 (La. Ct. App. 1994); see also Saba v. Hosp. Housekeeping Sys., Ltd., 20070916 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/21/07) (“The issues of one party’s liability and comparative fault are so
intertwined that a ruling on the first may, or at the very least appear to, unduly influence the second,
and thus, impermissibly taint the allocation of fault.”).
“A shopper has the duty of exercising reasonable care for his own safety.” Retif v. Doe, 632
So. 2d 405, 408 (La. Ct. App. 1994); Cusimano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2004-0248 (La. App. 1 Cir.
2/11/05), 906 So. 2d 484, 488; Castille v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 98-1216 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/30/99),
731 So. 2d 904, 909; see also Brungart v. K Mart Corp., 95-0708 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/23/96), 668 So.
2d 1335, 1339 (“A shopper who sees a potentially dangerous condition and fails to take reasonable
precautions to avoid the danger may be found to have contributed to his own injuries.”); Darby v.
Brookshire Grocery Co., 37,460 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/30/03), 851 So. 2d 358, 361 (holding that
shoppers have a duty to be “at least somewhat aware of [their] surroundings”).
Wal-Mart contends that article 2323’s requirement that fault be apportioned applies to
Plaintiffs’ action. As noted, Wal-Mart argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because
comparative fault is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. According to Wal-Mart, there is
evidence upon which a reasonable fact finder could apportion some of the fault of Mrs. Smith’s
injuries to Mrs. Smith.
Wal-Mart relies on a surveillance video of the incident. [Doc. No. 20-11]. In the video, Mrs.
Smith enters the store and walks towards a row of carts being pushed into the store. She reaches for
the front cart, the row stops moving, and she pushes the cart forward enough for her to stand behind
4
it. At this point, she is standing behind her cart with her back to and directly in front of the
previously moving row. After approximately sixteen seconds, the row moves again and strikes Mrs.
Smith from behind. [Doc. No. 20-11, 1:22:00-1:22:24 PM].
Wal-Mart asserts that Mrs. Smith knew that carts were pushed into the store in that particular
area. [Doc. No. 23, p. 8]. Wal-Mart argues that a fact finder could reasonably find that Mrs. Smith
was aware of the potentially dangerous condition – rows of carts being pushed into store in that area.
Additionally, Wal-Mart argues that a fact finder could reasonably conclude that Mrs. Smith breached
her duty to be aware of her surroundings and avoid accidents when she stood with her back to and
directly in front of a previously moving row. Wal-Mart points out that Mrs. Smith could have easily
taken reasonable precautions to avoid the dangerous condition. For example, she could have not
lingered in the cart area, not stood directly in front of a row, or not stood with her back to the cart
entrance. [Doc. No. 23, p. 8-9]. Essentially, Wal-Mart claims that a fact finder could reasonably rely
on such evidence to conclude that Mrs. Smith is partially at fault for her own injuries.
The Court agrees and finds that Wal-Mart has established a genuine issue of material fact for
trial: whether Mrs. Smith is partially at fault for her own injuries.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 20]
is DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 3rd day of January, 2014.
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?