Daniels et al v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Filing
26
OPINION and ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay denying 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. (trl, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MARIAN L. DANIELS, an individual,
and THOMAS E. DANIELS, an
individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOLGENCORP, LLC, a Kentucky
corporation, d/b/a DOLLAR
GENERAL STORES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) No. CIV-11-109-FHS
)
)
)
)
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER
This case was originally filed in the District Court of
Wagoner County, Oklahoma, and was removed to this federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, Marian L. Daniels
(“Marian Daniels”), asserts a negligence claim against Defendant,
Dolgencorp, LLC, d/b/a Dollar General Stores (“Dollar General”),
based
on
an
incident
where
she
slipped
and
fell
while
Defendant’s Coweta, Oklahoma, store on March 10, 2009.
in
Marian
Daniels contends she “was in an aisle in the Defendant’s store, and
slipped on a freshly mopped wet floor and fell forcefully impacting
the tile floor, sustaining injuries to her body.”
Marian
Daniels
contends
Dollar
General
Petition, ¶ 5.
failed
to
exercise
reasonable care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition
or to warn its customers of the hidden danger on the premises.
Plaintiff, Thomas E. Daniels (“Thomas Daniels”), the husband of
Marian Daniels, brings a claim for loss of consortium.
General has moved for summary judgment.
below, summary judgment is denied.
1
Dollar
For the reasons stated
The standards relevant to the disposition of a case on summary
judgment are well established.
Having moved for summary judgment
in its favor under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Dollar General’s initial burden is to show the absence of evidence
to support Plaintiffs’ claims.
325 (1986).
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
Dollar General must identify those portions of "the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any," which establish the
absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Universal Money
Centers v. AT&T, 22 F.3d 1527, 1529 (10th Cir. 1994)(quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)).
Dollar General need not negate Plaintiffs’
claims or disprove their evidence, but rather, its burden is to
show that there is no evidence in the record to support their
claims.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
Plaintiffs, as the nonmoving
parties, must go beyond the pleadings and "must set forth specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial as to those
dispositive matters for which [they] carr[y] the burden of proof."
Applied Genetics v. First Affiliated Securities, 912 F.2d 1238,
1241 (10th Cir. 1990).
Summary judgment is not appropriate if there exists a genuine
material factual issue.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 249-51 (1986). "A fact is 'material' only if it 'might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law,' and a dispute
about a material fact is 'genuine' only 'if the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party.'" Thomas v. IBM, 48 F.3d 478, 486 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In this regard, the court examines the
factual record and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
most favorable to Plaintiffs. Deepwater Invs. Ltd. v. Jackson Hole
Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
This court's
function is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of
2
the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
The facts taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs
establish the following.
On the evening of March 10, 2009, Marian
Daniels and her daughter, Wynetta Daniels, stopped at the Dollar
General Store in Coweta, Oklahoma.
They arrived at the store just
before closing time. Wynetta Daniels remained in the vehicle while
Marian Daniels went into the store to shop.
During the course of
her shopping, Marian Daniels turned to go up the paper product
aisle.
As she turned the corner, she felt her “feet just go”
without any warning, and she slipped and hit the floor.
Daniels Deposition, p. 86, line 23.
Marian
She was looking where she was
walking but did not see any water or liquid solution on the floor.
There were no signs warning of a wet floor in the area where she
fell.
Marian Daniels contends she sustained injuries as a result
of her fall.
Marian Daniels testified at her deposition that the floor was
wet in the area she fell.
She came to this conclusion because her
clothes underneath her were wet from the fall.
There is evidence
in the form of an answer to an interrogatory that a Dollar General
employee, Devon Riley, was mopping the floors in anticipation of
the closing of the store.
Also, Wynetta Daniels states in an
affidavit that after being summoned into the store after her
mother’s fall, she noticed “a mop bucket near the area where mother
fell.” Wynetta Daniels Affidavit, ¶ 7. These facts are sufficient
to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact precluding
the issuance of summary judgment in favor of Dollar General.
Under Oklahoma law, “[a] business invitor has a duty to
exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to an invitee, but the
3
invitor owes no duty to protect against hazards that are open and
obvious.”
2005).
Dover v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 111 P.3d 243, 245 (Okla.
Dollar General’s duty is limited to protecting invitees
such as Marian Daniels from “defects or conditions which are in the
nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like, in
that they are not known to the invitee and would not be observed by
[her] in the exercise of ordinary care.”
Id. at 246.
Dollar
General is “under no duty to keep [its] premises free from obvious
dangers,” nor is it obligated to warn about dangers that are
“readily apparent and observable.”
Billings v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 837 P.2d 932, 933 (Okla.Civ.App. 1992).
Dollar General contends it is entitled to summary judgment
because (1) it did not have notice of any defect in the aisle in
time to either correct the defect or give a warning of its presence
and (2) it owed no duty to warn of an open and obvious condition.
The Court disagrees and finds the facts as recited above establish
genuine issues of fact regarding notice to Dollar General and
whether the condition of the floor constituted a hidden danger
causing Marian Daniels’ fall and resulting injuries.
Daniels has testified the floor was wet where she fell.
Marian
There is
evidence to establish that the floor was being mopped at the time
of her fall and a mop bucket was found near the area of the fall.
Dollar General argues for a different interpretation of these
facts.
It has also presented evidence to contest Marian Daniels’
statement that the floor was wet.
Dollar General submits the
affidavit of Justin Poplin (“Poplin”), an EMS Crew Member with the
Coweta Fire Department, who was called to the scene to attend to
Marian Daniels and transport her to the hospital.
Poplin states
“there was no water around the patient, or the area where the
patient was lying on the floor” at the time he arrived at the
Dollar General store.
These conflicting versions of the condition
4
of the floor at the time of Marian Daniels’ fall, along with the
inferences to be drawn from the mopping of the floors and the
presence of the mop bucket near the site of the fall, present
genuine issues of fact to be resolved at trial by a jury.
Consequently, summary judgment in favor of Dollar General is
denied.
Based on the foregoing reasons, Dollar General’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) is denied.
It is so ordered this 6th day of January, 2012.
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?