Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Filing
45
MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 9/14/2015. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ANDREAN HALL
v.
WAL-MART EAST, L.P.
)
)
) NO. 3-13-0144
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 35).
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED, and
this action is DISMISSED.
FACTS
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on January 14, 2012, Plaintiff was shopping in a Wal-Mart
store in Nashville when she was injured by a falling of ceramic plates and the plates’ display rack.
Plaintiff contends that the falling of the plates on her hand dislocated her pinky finger and
permanently disfigured her hand. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant knew or should have known that
the display conditions were unsafe and posed an unreasonable danger to persons on the premises
of the store. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for her injuries.
In response to the pending Motion, Plaintiff has admitted, by failing to respond to
Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts and expressly (Docket No. 42-1), the following
additional facts. She removed several plates from the display rack with no problem or concern. She
did not look at the rack when she was taking down the first three or four plates. After she had
removed the fourth plate from the display rack, a plate fell on her hand/finger. No one else was
taking down plates, shaking the display rack, or standing around the area at the time of her accident.
No one else caused the plates to be dislodged or caused any movement that would cause the rack
to collapse. Plaintiff does not know whether anything was broken on the rack after the alleged
incident, and Plaintiff has no information or evidence that Defendant ever had any other problems
regarding the shelving of the plates. Docket No. 37.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment, contending that it owed no duty to the
Plaintiff; there was not a dangerous or defective condition on its premises; no one else caused the
plates to be dislodged; Defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous
condition of the display; and Plaintiff’s comparative fault precludes any recovery. Docket No. 35.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pennington v. State
Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the summary
judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion and
identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over material
facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may satisfy this
burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving party’s claim
or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Id.
In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts
and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk
Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh the
evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence
has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a
2
scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s position will be insufficient to survive
summary judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
nonmoving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.
NEGLIGENCE
To establish the elements of a negligence claim, Plaintiff must show (1) a duty of care owed
by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; (2) conduct falling below the applicable standard of care
amounting to a breach of that duty; (3) an injury or loss; (4) causation in fact; and (5) proximate, or
legal, cause. Green v. Roberts, 398 S.W.3d 172, 176 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). In cases involving
premises liability, the premises owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances
to prevent injury to persons lawfully on the premises. Id. at 177. Tennessee courts have stated that
a business owner breaches the duty of care owed to its customers when it allows a dangerous
condition to exist on the premises if that condition was created by the owner, operator or his agent
or, if the condition is created by someone else, when the business owner had actual or constructive
notice that the dangerous condition existed prior to the customer’s injury. Morris v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 330 F.3d 854, 858 (6th Cir. 2003).
In other words, to succeed on her claim against Defendant for negligence, Plaintiff must
demonstrate that Defendant created the allegedly dangerous condition or that Defendant had actual
or constructive knowledge of the condition prior to Plaintiff’s injury. Constructive knowledge
cannot generally be established without showing the length of time the dangerous condition existed.
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2015 WL 5026156 at * 2 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2015);
Hardesty v. Service Merchandise Co., Inc., 953 S.W.2d 678, 682 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “Where
there is a complete absence of proof as to when and how the dangerous condition came about, it
3
would be improper to permit the jury to speculate on these vital elements.” Id. at 683 (cited in
Taylor at * 2).
Here, Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence in the record to show how this allegedly
dangerous condition was created or how long it had existed prior to her injury. Moreover, she has
cited no evidence to support a finding that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the
condition.
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff cannot rely on the conclusory
allegations of her Complaint. Rather, she must come forward with probative evidence tending to
support the Complaint. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986) (cited in Anderson
v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 2013 WL 3010696 at * 1 (M.D. Tenn. June 18, 2013)). Speculation
does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a
primary goal of summary judgment. Id. at * 2.
As in Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Plaintiff’s invocation of the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine in response to Defendant’s Motion does not save her negligence claim. Res ipsa loquitur
is a form of circumstantial evidence that permits, but does not compel, a jury to infer negligence
from the circumstances of an injury. Id. at * 3. All that is required is evidence from which
reasonable persons can say that, on the whole, it is more likely that negligence attributable to the
Defendant caused the Plaintiff’s injury. Id.
Here, Plaintiff has not carried her burden to demonstrate that evidence. In the absence of
proof as to what caused the plates to fall, a jury would be able only to speculate that Defendant was
responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries, just as they could speculate that Plaintiff was responsible for her
own injuries. Negligence is not presumed from the mere happening of an injury or accident.
4
Hardesty, 953 S.W.2d at 683. As noted above, where there is a complete absence of proof as to
when and how the dangerous condition came about, it is improper to permit the jury to speculate.
Id. Plaintiff argues in her Response brief that the construction, maintenance and condition of the
racks in Defendant’s store failed to comply with reasonable standards of care, but she has failed to
show what those reasonable standards are or how Defendant failed to comply.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 35) is
GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?