Graves v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Filing
29
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 22 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 3/29/2018) (axm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WANDA GRAVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1001-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Plaintiff’s Claims (Doc. No. 22). After careful review of the motion, the
response, the reply, the supporting appendices, the applicable law, and any relevant
portions of the record, the Court GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.
I.
Factual Background
While shopping at a store of Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Defendant”) in
Dallas, Texas, Plaintiff Wanda Graves (“Plaintiff”) slipped and fell on a grape on the
floor. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant in state court, alleging state law
claims, and Defendant removed the case to this Court based on diversity.
II.
Standards for Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits and other summary
judgment evidence show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving
ORDER – PAGE 1
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute of a material fact is “genuine” if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving
party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
All evidence and
reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and
all disputed facts resolved in favor of the nonmovant. See United States v. Diebold, Inc.,
369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th
Cir. 2005).
The moving party bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at
322-25. Once the movant satisfies his burden, the nonmovant must present competent
summary judgment evidence showing a genuine fact issue for trial exists. Id. at 321-25;
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255-57. To meet this burden, the nonmovant must go beyond the
pleadings and designate specific facts in the record establishing a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,
1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). The nonmovant may satisfy this burden by providing
depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence; not with “conclusory allegations,
speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions.” Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated
assertions, or a mere scintilla of evidence cannot defeat a motion for summary
ORDER – PAGE 2
judgment.
See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-52; Boudreaux, 402 F.3d at 540.
If the
nonmovant fails to make a sufficient showing to prove the existence of an essential
element to the case and on which the nonmovant will bear the burden of proving at
trial, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
“Even if there is a dispute regarding some material facts, a movant may obtain
summary judgment if he can prove there is no evidence to support one or more essential
elements of the non-moving party’s claim.” Walker v. Geithner, 400 F. App’x 914, 916
(5th Cir. 2010)(per curium)(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-25). However, “[i]t is not
sufficient to merely list the elements of the claims and state that there is no evidence to
support the elements.” Seastruck v. Darwell Integrated Tech., Civ. No. 3:05-CV-0531-BF,
2008 WL 190316, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2008) (Stickney, M.J.). The movant must
cite to the record to demonstrate a lack of evidence that supports the nonmovant’s
claims. Id.
III.
Applicable Law
An invitee is owed a duty by the owner to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees
from dangerous store conditions known to or discoverable by the store.
Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998); see also Rosas v. Buddie’s Food
Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. 1975)(invitee is “one who enters on another’s land
with the owner’s knowledge and for the mutual benefit of both.”). But this duty does
not make the owner a general insurer of its customers’ safety on the premises. See id.
ORDER – PAGE 3
To prove a claim of premises liability, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the owner had
actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises; (2) that the
condition created or posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the owner failed to
exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) that the owner’s failure
to exercise reasonable care was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. CMH
Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. 2000).
To establish the owner had knowledge of a potentially harmful condition, “a slipand-fall plaintiff . . . [must establish] that (1) the defendant placed the substance on the
floor, (2) the defendant actually knew that the substance was on the floor, or (3) it is
more likely than not that the condition existed long enough to give the premises owner
a reasonable opportunity to discover it.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812,
814 (Tex. 2002). It is not enough for the plaintiff to merely show that an employee
came in close proximity to a hazard; a plaintiff must point to some temporal evidence
that the owner had a reasonable opportunity to discover a dangerous condition. Id. at
816.
IV.
Application of the Law to the Facts
Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot
establish the required notice element of her claims. Plaintiff responds that she “believes
that Defendant had constructive knowledge” because the condition of the floor was not
inspected prior to her fall and Defendant had a reasonable amount of time to discover
ORDER – PAGE 4
the condition. In its reply, Defendant maintains Plaintiff offers no evidence supporting
her claim that Defendant had any knowledge, constructive or actual, of the grape.
Defendant’s knowledge of the grape on the floor is a required element of Plaintiff’s
claim.
See CMH Homes, 15 S.W.3d at 99.
To establish Defendant’s actual or
constructive knowledge, Plaintiff would have to show: (1) that Defendant placed the
grape on the floor; (2) that Defendant actually knew the grape was on the floor; or (3)
that the grape was on the floor long enough to give Defendant a reasonable opportunity
to discover and remove it. See Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 814. Plaintiff concedes she does not
know how the grape came to be on the floor, and also that she has no evidence
Defendant had actual knowledge about the grape. Instead, in her response, Plaintiff
argues Defendant had constructive knowledge of the grape on the floor because the
condition of the grape on the floor was never inspected prior to Plaintiff’s fall.
In
support of her constructive knowledge argument, Plaintiff cites to her own affidavit in
which she states she heard an employee of Defendant say he didn’t know of anyone who
had been in the area where Plaintiff fell for at least an hour. She also states that she
heard another employee of Defendant say to someone else that a regular check of this
area should be done. Plaintiff offers no other summary judgment evidence in support of
her argument.
Plaintiff must point to some temporal evidence that Defendant had a reasonable
opportunity to discover the grape on the floor. Id. at 816.
ORDER – PAGE 5
Her affidavit falls far short
of establishing any temporal evidence that the grape was on the floor long enough that
Defendant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the grape on the floor. In her
response, Plaintiff actually concedes that she has no knowledge of “the entirety of [the
grape] being on the floor.” There is no evidence other than Plaintiff’s own affidavit as
to how long the grape might have been on the floor. “Without temporal proof, no basis
exists upon which a factfinder can ‘reasonably assess the opportunity the premises
owner had to discover the dangerous condition.’” Young v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex., LLC,
No. 05-14-00362-CV, 2015 WL 1062744, at *2 (Tex.App.—Dallas Mar. 10, 2015); see
Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 814 (plaintiff “must produce sufficient evidence to create a triable
issue as to whether ‘the dangerous condition existed long enough to give the proprietor a
reasonable opportunity to discover the condition.’”
Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to create a genuine issue of material fact as to
Defendant’s knowledge, actual or constructive, which is a required element of her
claims. See Walker, 400 F. App’x at 916 (“Even if there is a dispute regarding some
material facts, a movant may obtain summary judgment if he can prove there is no
evidence to support one or more essential elements of non-moving party’s claim.”). The
Court finds summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims is appropriate and grants
Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
ORDER – PAGE 6
V.
Conclusion
Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds
that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of producing summary judgment evidence
showing a genuine fact issue for trial exists as to Defendant’s knowledge of the grape on
the floor that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s fall.
Accordingly, the Court grants
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
SO ORDERED.
Signed March 29th, 2018.
______________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER – PAGE 7
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?