Sandoval v. Target Corporation
Filing
24
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Target Corporation. There is simply insufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of plaintiff's claim. The court ORDERS that defendant's motion for summary judgment be, and is hereby, granted; that plaintiff take nothing on her claims against defendant; and, that such claims be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 5/1/2015) (mem)
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
. NORTHERN D!STRlCTOFTCXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE
FORT WORTH DIVISION
VILMA SANDOVAL,
·
FILED
:•UR1
§
1UW - I
m~_j
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COL!U
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
TARGET CORPORATION D/B/A
TARGET STORE #876 AND/OR D/B/A
GRAPEVINE TARGET,
§
Defendant.
NO. 4:14-CV-679-A
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the motion of defendant, Target
Corporation, for summary judgment. The court, having considered
the motion, the response, the summary judgment record, and
applicable authorities, finds that the motion should be granted.
I.
Background
According to plaintiff's first amended complaint, as
supplemented by the summary judgment record, on July 14, 2012,
plaintiff, Vilma Sandoval, went to a Target store in Grapevine,
Texas, to purchase a zipper. She arrived at approximately 8:208:30 a.m. As she was walking past the Starbucks at the store's
entry, near a display of $1 items for sale, she fell, injuring
herself.
II.
Ground of the Motion
Defendant urges a single ground in support of its motion:
plaintiff cannot show that defendant had actual or constructive
notice of a condition posing an unreasonable risk to its invitees
prior to plaintiff's accident.
III.
Applicable Summary Judgment Standards
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that the court shall grant summary judgment on a claim or defense
if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. civ.
P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247
(1986).
The movant bears the initial burden of pointing out to
the court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 u.s. 317, 323, 325 (1986).
The movant can discharge this burden by pointing out the absence
of evidence supporting one or more essential elements of the
nonmoving party's claim,
"since a complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."
Id. at 323.
Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56(a), the
nonmoving party must identify evidence in the record that creates
2
a genuine dispute as to each of the challenged elements of its
case.
Id. at 324; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)
("A party
asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support
citing to particular parts of materials in
the assertion by
the record
.").
If the evidence identified could not lead
a rational trier of fact to find in favor of the nonmoving party
as to each essential element of the nonmoving party's case, there
is no genuine dispute for trial and summary judgment is
appropriate.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 u.s. 574, 587, 597 (1986).
In Mississippi Prot. & Advocacy
Sys. v. Cotten, the Fifth Circuit explained:
Where the record, including affidavits,
interrogatories, admissions, and depositions could not,
as a whole, lead a rational trier of fact to find for
the nonmoving party, there is no issue for trial.
92 9 F. 2d 1054, 1058
(5th Cir. 1991) .
The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is
the same as the standard for rendering judgment as a matter of
law.'
Celotex Corp., 477 u.s. at 323.
If the record taken as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.
'In Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir. 1969) (en bane), the Fifth Circuit
explained the standard to be applied in determining whether the court should enter judgment on motions
for directed verdict or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
3
Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 597; see also Mississippi Prot. &
Advocacy Sys.,
929 F.2d at 1058.
IV.
Analysis
This is a diversity case in which Texas law applies. Cleere
Drilling Co. v. Dominion Exploration & Prod .. Inc., 351 F.3d 642,
646
(5th Cir. 2003). In Texas, an owner/occupier owes a duty to
use reasonable care to make and keep its premises safe for
business invitees. Clayton Williams, Jr.,
S.W.2d 523, 527
Inc. v. Olivo, 952
(Tex. 1997). The elements of a cause of action
for premises liability are:
(1) existence of a condition of the
premises creating an unreasonable risk of harm;
(2)
the
owner/occupier knew or should have known of the existence of the
condition;
(3)
the owner/occupier failed to use reasonable care
to reduce or eliminate the risk by rectifying or warning of the
condition; and (4)
such failure was a proximate cause of
plaintiff's injury. CMG Homes,
Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 99
(Tex. 2000); Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 264
(Tex.
1992). An owner/occupier is not an insurer of the safety of its
guests; it is not liable to invitees for conditions of which it
did not have actual or constructive knowledge. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Reece,
81 S.W.3d 812, 814
4
(Tex. 2002).
To prevail on the notice element of her claim, plaintiff
must show that : (1) defendant actually created the condition;
defendant actually knew that the condition existed; or (3)
(2)
it is
more likely than not that the condition existed long enough to
give defendant reasonable notice of it. Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 814.
Further, the proximity of an employee to the location where the
incident occurred merely indicates that it was possible for the
owner/occupier to discover the condition, not that it reasonably
should have discovered the condition. There must be temporal
evidence of the amount of time that the condition had existed.
Id. at 816-17.
Here, as defendant points out, plaintiff cannot, and has
not, produced any evidence to show that defendant knew or should
have known of an unreasonably dangerous condition. Instead, the
evidence produced by plaintiff herself establishes that she
cannot prevail on her claim. For example, the guest incident
report, pl. app. at 17, shows that the cause of the incident was
a slippery floor, but that plaintiff's clothes were not wet or
damaged and the floor/ground was clean and dry. Further, the
statement of the Starbucks employee nearby shows that he thought
plaintiff might have tripped on her shoe, because it looked "like
her shoe had fallen." Plaintiff was wearing platform sandals. Id.
at 27. Plaintiff's clothes were not wet. Id. The cashier who was
5
working nearby had been through the area before the incident and
noted that the floor had been cleaned but did not seem to be wet.
Id. at 18.
There is simply insufficient evidence to raise a genuine
issue of material fact as to an essential element of plaintiff's
claim.
v.
Order
The court ORDERS that defendant's motion for summary
judgment be, and is hereby, granted; that plaintiff take nothing
on her claims against defendant; and, that such claims be, and
are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
SIGNED May 1, 2015.
6
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?