Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00381/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00381-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENISE BLALOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv381-MHT

) (WO) 

WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Denise Blalock has filed a timely motion to

alter or amend this court’s summary judgment for defendant

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, on her slip-and-fall claims.

That motion will be denied with the following comments.

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

authorizes a motion to alter or amend a judgment after its

entry. Rule 59(e) provides no specific grounds for

relief, and “the decision to alter or amend judgment is

committed to the sound discretion of the district judge.”

American Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assocs., Inc.,

763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). There are four

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 52 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 5
2

basic grounds for granting a Rule 59(e) motion: (1)

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment was

based; (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable

evidence; (3) manifest injustice in the judgment; and (4)

an intervening change in the controlling law. 11 Charles

Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal

Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at 124-27 (2d ed. 1995).

Rule 59(e) may not be used to relitigate old matters or to

present arguments or evidence that could have been raised

prior to judgment. O’Neal v. Kennamer, 958 F.2d 1044,

1047 (11th Cir. 1992).

Blalock asserts one error of fact and one error of

law. According to Blalock, the court failed to consider

the fact that, although Blalock’s husband and son walked

past the wooden pallet lying on the ground, they did not

alert Blalock to the presence of the pallet. Blalock also

states that the court erred as a matter of law in failing

to recognize that a hazard is not open and obvious as a

matter of law unless the plaintiff consciously appreciates

the danger at the moment the incident occurs. Marquis v.

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 52 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 5
3

Marquis, 480 So.2d 1213, 1215 (Ala. 1985). Blalock argues

that there is no evidence that she consciously appreciated

the danger of the pallet at the exact moment she tripped

and fell.

Blalock’s argument is unavailing for two reasons.

First, the court based its decision on the subjective

component of the ‘open and obvious hazard’ rule; so long

as Blalock herself noticed the pallet, it is irrelevant

whether her companions did as well. Second, Blalock’s

reliance on Marquis is misplaced. Marquis does not

present a situation where the plaintiff noticed the danger

but then forgot about it. That situation is presented by

City of Birmingham v. Edwards, 77 So. 841, 844 (Ala.

1918), in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that

forgetfulness and inattention to a known danger does not

excuse the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.

Although Blalock asserts that she has an excuse for her

forgetfulness--she had her back to the pallet and was

engaged in conversation--there is no reason why that

explanation should relieve Blalock of the responsibility

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 52 Filed 06/11/07 Page 3 of 5
4

to avoid a danger she already knew was there. If Wal-Mart

or even a third person were responsible for Blalock’s

forgetfulness, then perhaps the situation would be

different. For example, in Breeden v. Hardy Corp., 562

So.2d 159 (Ala. 1990), although the plaintiff was

generally familiar with the construction site and the

dangers it presented, the evidence reflected that the

conditions related to the area where the plaintiff was

injured had been recently modified, thus creating a jury

question as to whether the plaintiff was consciously aware

of the danger at the time the incident occurred. Here, by

contrast, there is no good reason, at the time the

incident occurred, for Blalock not to remember and

appreciate the danger she had already observed.

Although it is inevitable that forgetful business

invitees will occasionally trip over known obstacles

shortly after observing them, such is the essence of

contributory negligence and the law does not support

shifting the costs of such forgetfulness to the business

invitor. 

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 52 Filed 06/11/07 Page 4 of 5
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Denise

Blalock’s Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment

(doc. no. 49) is denied.

DONE, this the 11th day of June, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00381-MHT-WC Document 52 Filed 06/11/07 Page 5 of 5