Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00395/USCOURTS-ared-3_15-cv-00395-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

ALICIA BOLER PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 3:15CV00395 PSH

DOLGENCORP LLC, dba

DOLLAR GENERAL DEFENDANT

ORDER

The defendant, Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General (“Dollar General”), seeks summary

judgment in this personal injury diversity case brought by Alicia Boler (“Boler”). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides for the entry of summary judgment only in those

circumstances where there is no genuine issue of material fact, so that the dispute may be decided

on purely legal grounds.

This may occur when a plaintiff cannot demonstrate that a genuine fact issue exists. 

But the party opposing the summary judgment must be given the benefit of all

favorable factual inferences, and summary judgment cannot be granted when the

non-movant shows that an alleged undisputed fact actually presents a triable issue.

Holloway v. Lockhart, et al., 8l3 F.2d 874, 878 (8th Cir.l987) (citations omitted). 

 Once a motion for summary judgment is made and supported, it places an affirmative duty

on the non-moving party to “go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence showing that

a genuine issue of material fact exists.” See Uhiren v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, Inc., 346

F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2003). 

In her complaint, Boler alleges she was injured on September 21, 2015, while shopping at

a Dollar General store in Paragould, Arkansas. She states that a bottle of Mr. Clean fell from a shelf

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 7
and burst, causing injuries to her eyes and scarring. 

Dollar General argues summary judgment is proper because Boler cannot establish

negligence, and submits the affidavit of the store manager, Chris Robinson (“Robinson”), along with

an excerpt from Boler’s deposition, in support. Robinson was the general manager at the Dollar

General store in Paragould, Arkansas, and was working on the date of the incident. Docket entry

no. 10-2, page 1. He states as follows:

It is my understanding that Ms. Boler claims a bottle of Mr. Clean

fell from a shelf and onto the floor, burst, and splashed cleaner into

her face. Approximately 30 minutes before this incident, I was in the

cleaning solution aisle inspecting it for hazards such as foreign

objects on the floor or unsafe displays. During my inspection, I

observed that the bottles of Mr. Clean were properly stocked and

displayed. Between my inspection and the time of Ms. Boler’s

incident, I noticed that other customers entered the aisle but none

reported any problems or hazards. I also inspected the aisle

immediately after the incident and, with the exception of the bottle

that was on the floor, all the Mr. Clean bottles were still properly

stocked. I have no explanation as to how or why this bottle would

have fallen absent someone knocking the bottle off the shelf. The

Mr. Clean bottles were not stacked in such a manner that they would

fall off the shelf without some external force causing them to fall. 

Docket entry no. 10-2. Boler has not disputed the facts set forth in Robinson’s affidavit.

Dollar General stresses that Boler’s deposition testimony also supports its position that

summary judgment should be granted. Specifically, Boler stated in her deposition, “I was just

looking at it and I went to touch to grab it and I hadn’t even touched it yet and one fell off and hit

the floor. I automatically went to try to keep it from hitting the floor. I didn’t even get to touch it,

and it hit the floor and exploded.” Docket entry no. 10-1, page 4. She also stated that the bottle fell

before she touched any other bottles and she had “no idea” what caused the bottle to fall. Id., page

6. Boler did not remember if there was anyone else on the aisle at the time of the incident, or

2

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 7
whether any other bottles fell. Id. Additionally, she was unable to recall how the Mr. Clean bottles

were displayed, how the structure of the display could have caused the Mr. Clean bottle to fall, or

if anything on the display was out of place before the incident. Docket entry no. 10-1, pages 6-7. 

Boler claims that the Mr. Clean bottles had to have been displayed incorrectly for the bottle to have

fallen off the shelf. 

Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment is based on an argument that Boler cannot

establish, without conjecture or speculation, that negligence on its part caused the bottle to fall. In

her response, Boler does not dispute the facts as established in her deposition testimony. She argues,

however, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies and supports an inference of negligence,

relying on Fleming v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 268 Ark. 559, 595 S.W.2d 241 (Ark. App. 1980). 

“The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was developed to assist in the proof of negligence where

the cause [of an accident] is connected with an instrumentality in the exclusive control of a

defendant.... It applies where the evidence of the true cause is available to the defendant but not to

the plaintiff.... The doctrine, where applicable, allows the jury to infer negligence from the plaintiff’s

evidence of circumstances surrounding the occurrence....” Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., 2010 Ark.

466, 6, 369 S.W.3d 717, 720 (2010)(citations omitted). The parties agree to the general statement

of the doctrine: res ipsa loquitur applies if a plaintiff shows that “(1) the defendant owes a duty to

the plaintiff to use due care; (2) the accident is caused by the thing or instrumentality under the

control of the defendant; (3) the accident which caused the injury is one that, in the ordinary course

of things would not occur if those having control and management of the instrumentality used proper

care; and (4) there is an absence of evidence to the contrary.” Schubert, 2010 Ark. 466, 6, 369

S.W.3d 717, 720-21 (2010). For the doctrine to apply, Boler must show that Dollar General was

3

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 7
responsible for all “reasonably probable causes of the accident.” Nichols v. International Paper Co.,

278 Ark. 226, 231, 644 S.W.2d 583, 586 (1983). The Arkansas Supreme Court in Nichols

explained: 

It is never enough for the plaintiff to prove merely that he has been

injured by the negligence of someone unidentified. Even though

there is beyond all possible doubt negligence in the air, it is still

necessary to bring it home to the defendant. On this too the plaintiff

has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence; and in

any case where it is clear that it is at least equally probable that the 

negligence was that of another, the court must direct the jury that the

plaintiff has not proved his case. The injury must either be traced to

a specific instrumentality or cause for which the defendant was

responsible, or it must be shown that he was responsible for all

reasonably probable causes to which the accident could be attributed.

Nichols, 278 Ark. at 231, 644 S.W.2d at 586 (citing W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 39; Dollins v.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 252 Ark. 13, 477 S.W.2d 179 (1972). 

The parties agree that Dollar General owes a duty to Boler to use due care, and thus the first

element required for application of res ipsa loquitur is established. The question here is whether

the Mr. Clean bottle which fell and injured Boler was under the exclusive possession and control

of Dollar General up to the time of Boler’s injury. See, e.g., Barker v. Clark, 343 Ark. 8, 33 S.W.3d

476, 480 (2000)(“[I]t is ordinarily required that the instrumentality causing injury have been in

defendants’ exclusive possession and control up to the time of the plaintiff’s injury” in order “[t]o

make certain that the injury has not been caused by somebody else, through some intervening

negligence.”). 

Boler urges that Fleming, supra, compels a finding in her favor on this issue. Fleming, a

1980 decision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals, held that res ipsa loquitur applied when a WalMart customer was injured by a metal utility cabinet that fell from a display case. The plaintiff’s

4

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 4 of 7
husband observed the display case for a period of time before the incident, and witnessed another

customer open and shut the doors on some of the cabinets during that time. Wal-Mart argued that

a third party’s handling of the cabinets was an intervening cause and plaintiff could therefore not

prove exclusive control. The court rejected this argument and held that Wal-Mart should have

considered “ordinary and foreseeable customer handling” when it created the display. 268 Ark. at

246-47; 595 S.W.2d at 570. The eyewitness testimony established that there was no mishandling

of the cabinets by the third party customer. Thus, the court stated, “[a]bsent some evidence of

customer abuse or some other unforeseeable or uncontrollable event, which would explain the

occurrence in question without negligence on the part of the defendant, it is only logical to conclude

that the cabinet fell as the result of the negligence of Wal-Mart, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

is applicable.” Id. at 247, 595 S.W.2d at 571. 

The Court disagrees that Fleming compels a conclusion that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

applies to the facts of this case. In Dupont v. Fred’s Stores of Tennessee, Inc., 652 F.3d 878 (8th Cir.

2011), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Arkansas law, examined the Fleming case and

found res ipsa loquitur did not apply when the plaintiff shopper was injured by falling bins from a

display shelf. In that case, the plaintiff asked a store employee to pull down a stack of plastic bins

that were displayed on a shelf. The bins were pulled down, and then replaced on the shelf when the

plaintiff indicated she was not interested in them. The plaintiff returned to the same aisle an

undetermined period of time later, and was struck in the head by falling bins. No one witnessed the

incident, and the plaintiff could not explain what had happened, stating “I don’t know. I just

remember holding onto the cart. I was on my knees and my head was hurting, and then some elderly

man was standing next to me.” 652 F.3d at 880. At trial, the court rejected the plaintiff’s proffered

5

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 5 of 7
res ipsa loquitur jury instruction. After a defense verdict, the plaintiff appealed, contending that

Fleming compelled a reversal. 

The Eighth Circuit panel disagreed, finding that the plaintiff “underestimates the exclusive

control requirement. The continuous eyewitness testimony in Fleming conclusively established that

no customer, including the plaintiff, negligently handled the cabinet in the moments leading up to

the accident.... Thus, it could still be said Wal-Mart had exclusive control of the cabinet when it fell,

without intervening negligence, from its intended display location. The same cannot be said here

because the Duponts cannot account for the time between when the bins were returned to the shelf

and the injury.” Id., at 884. As a result, the Dupont Court concluded the store did not have

exclusive control of the bins at the time of the accident, and res ipsa loquitur did not apply.1 In so

finding, the court recognized settled Arkansas law that res ipsa loquitur does not apply when “there

[are] other possibilities which the jury could consider other than the negligence of the [store] being

the sole cause of the [customer’s] injuries.”2

 Brantley v. Stewart Bldg. & Hardware Supplies, Inc.,

274 Ark. 555, 626 S.W.2d 943, 946 (1982). 

Applying the law set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court to the facts of this case, the Court

finds that Boler has failed to establish that Dollar General had exclusive control of the Mr. Clean

bottles up to the time of her injury. As in Dupont, the record does not foreclose other possible

 1In addition to distinguishing the facts in Fleming from the facts before them, the Eighth

Circuit noted that although it was bound to apply Arkansas law as articulated by the Supreme

Court of Arkansas, it was not bound by decisions of intermediate courts, such as the Arkansas

Court of Appeals’ Fleming decision. 652 F.3d at 884 (citing Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of

Am. v. Nat’l Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 621 F.3d. 697 (8th Cir. 2010)).

 2

In Dupont, the court recognized that 20 minutes passed from the time the bins were replaced

on the shelf to the time of the incident, and the bins were accessible to store customers during

that time.

6

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 6 of 7
causes of the accident apart from negligence by Dollar Store or its employees. Thirty minutes

passed from the time the store manager inspected the aisle where the Mr. Clean bottles were

displayed until the time of the incident. Other customers entered the aisle during that time, and those

customers, like Boler, would have had access to the bottles, thus eliminating Dollar General’s

exclusive control. It follows that res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable.

Based upon the foregoing, Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and

judgment will be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of December, 2016.

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

Case 3:15-cv-00395-PSH Document 20 Filed 12/14/16 Page 7 of 7