[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17740

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00167-HLM

ROSEMARY WRIGHT, 

CLAUDE WRIGHT, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

DISH NETWORK, LLC, 

DISH NETWORK SERVICE, LLC, 

DISHNET SATELLITE BROADBAND, LLC, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 2, 2017)

Before HULL, WILSON, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 1 of 9 
2

Rosemary Wright (Rosemary) and Claude Wright (Claude) appeal the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DISH Network, LLC, DISH 

Network Service, LLC, and dishNET Satellite Broadband, LLC with respect to

Rosemary’s negligence claim, Claude’s loss of consortium claim, and the Wrights’ 

punitive damages claim. On appeal, the Wrights assert their allegation of 

causation as to Rosemary’s negligence claim is not mere speculation, and contend 

the district court erred by granting summary judgment on their remaining claims 

based on its grant of summary judgment with respect to the negligence claim. 

After review,1 we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a trip-and-fall incident that occurred on the Wrights’ 

property on August 21, 2013. On August 4, 2013, the Wrights entered into an 

agreement with DISH Network under which DISH Network would provide high 

speed internet service. The same day, a DISH Network Service employee entered 

the Wrights’ property to install new or upgraded equipment. Seventeen days later, 

while either placing a garbage can near her house or taking out the trash, Rosemary 

tripped and fell onto her left side, injuring her leg. 

 1 “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all the 

evidence, and drawing all reasonable factual inferences, in favor of the nonmoving party.” 

Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014).

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 2 of 9 
3

In 2015, the Wrights filed a complaint in state court against DISH Network, 

DISH Network Service, and dishNET Satellite Broadband, alleging Rosemary had 

tripped over a wire left on the Wrights’ property by the DISH Network Service 

employee. Rosemary asserted a claim for negligence, and Claude asserted a claim 

for loss of consortium. The Wrights also alleged a claim for punitive damages. 

The defendants removed the action to federal court, where it proceeded to 

discovery. 

In her deposition, Rosemary testified that, while taking out the trash one 

afternoon, her left shoe caught on a wire on the ground, causing her to trip and fall. 

Rosemary was not looking down as she approached the trash can, and she did not 

see a wire at any point while she was outside. She also did not feel a wire as she 

tripped, and she was unaware of how the wire was positioned when she fell. 

Rosemary first heard about a wire later that day when Claude said she had tripped 

over it. 

Claude testified he observed the DISH Network Service employee who 

came to upgrade the Wrights’ internet. Extending out from the Wrights’ house 

was a green wire, which Claude saw the employee cut. Claude stated the 

employee “undoubtedly thr[ew] [the green wire] over where the garbage cans 

were” after cutting it. Claude also testified the employee “took the green wire 

loose from the old system and it was throw[n] back.” Claude admitted he did not 

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 3 of 9 
4

see Rosemary fall. Rosemary told him she tripped on something, but did not 

mention a wire. Claude first saw the wire the following morning. 

The defendants moved for summary judgment. In their response to the 

defendants’ statement of material facts, the Wrights admitted there was a ground 

rod, a garbage can, a rock or a piece of newspaper, and an area where the ground 

changed to a paved driveway around where Rosemary fell. The Wrights also 

conceded neither DISH Network nor dishNET Satellite Broadband employed the 

individual who performed the equipment installation at their house. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 

First, the district court concluded DISH Network and dishNET Satellite Broadband 

were entitled to summary judgment because they did not employ or have a 

contractual relationship with the DISH Network Service employee who allegedly 

left the green wire on the ground. The district court further determined 

Rosemary’s testimony that her foot became caught in the wire was selfcontradictory and therefore disregarded it. Because the Wrights offered only 

speculation as to the cause of Rosemary’s fall, the district court concluded DISH 

Network Service was entitled to summary judgment on Rosemary’s negligence 

claim. Finally, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants on Claude’s loss of consortium claim and the Wrights’ punitive 

damages claim because both were derivative of Rosemary’s right to recover for her 

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 4 of 9 
5

injury. Accordingly, the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. 

This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is appropriate when the movant demonstrates that there 

is no genuine issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014). Once 

the movant submits a properly supported motion for summary judgment, “the 

burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that specific facts exist that raise a 

genuine issue for trial.” Id. (quoting Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 

812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010)). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a 

rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is ‘no genuine issue for 

trial.’” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007) (quoting 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 

1348, 1356 (1986)).

In trip-and-fall cases where liability is premised on a third party creating a 

hazard on the plaintiff’s property, traditional negligence principles apply.2

 See 

Fitzgerald v. Storer Cable Commc’ns, Inc., 446 S.E.2d 755, 756–57 (Ga. Ct. App. 

1994). To establish liability based on negligence, the plaintiff must show that 

(1) “the defendant had a legal duty to protect the plaintiff from a foreseeable risk of 

 2 Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the substantive law of the forum state. 

Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 427, 116 S. Ct. 2211, 2219 (1996).

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 5 of 9 
6

the alleged harm,” (2) “the defendant’s act or omission breached this duty,” and 

(3) “there exists a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the 

alleged injury sufficient to show that the conduct proximately caused the injury.” 

Id. at 757 (quoting Leonardson v. Ga. Power Co., 436 S.E.2d 690, 692 (Ga. Ct. 

App. 1993), superseded on other grounds by statute, Ga. L. 1992, p. 2141, § 1). 

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the 

defendants as to Rosemary’s negligence claim. First, the Wrights conceded neither 

DISH Network nor dishNET Satellite Broadband employed the individual who 

went to the Wrights’ house and allegedly threw the green wire toward the garbage 

can. Accordingly, Rosemary cannot show that these defendants had a legal duty to 

protect her from a foreseeable risk of the alleged harm, that the defendants 

breached this duty, or the existence of a causal connection between the defendants’ 

actions and her injury. Id.

Assuming arguendo that Rosemary sufficiently established the first two 

elements of a negligence claim against DISH Network Service, the record as a 

whole still could not lead a rational jury to find a causal connection between the 

DISH Network Service employee’s alleged conduct and Rosemary’s injury. See 

Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, 127 S. Ct. at 1776; Fitzgerald, 446 S.E.2d at 757. Although 

she testified her left shoe caught in a wire, Rosemary did not see a wire outside, 

nor did she feel a wire as she tripped. Her testimony that she tripped over the wire

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 6 of 9 
7

is mere speculation. Claude also could not provide any direct evidence as to the 

cause of Rosemary’s fall because he did not witness the incident. Rather, Claude

simply saw a wire on the ground later that day or the following day and assumed 

Rosemary tripped over it. 

Moreover, the Wrights admitted there were other items in the area which 

may have caused Rosemary’s fall, including a ground rod, a garbage can, a rock or 

a piece of newspaper, and an area where the ground changed to a paved driveway. 

Each presented a potential hazard, and there is no evidence in the record 

suggesting it is more likely Rosemary tripped over the wire than any of the other 

objects. 

Citing J.H. Harvey Co. v. Reddick, 522 S.E.2d 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999), the 

Wrights contend a reasonable jury could infer the wire allegedly thrown by the 

DISH Network Service employee caused Rosemary’s fall. In J.H. Harvey, a 

premises liability case, the plaintiff allegedly slipped on scuppernongs on the floor 

of a grocery store. 522 S.E.2d at 751. As she was getting up, the plaintiff noticed 

two scuppernongs on the floor next to her. Id. An assistant manager also saw two 

scuppernong skins on the floor where the plaintiff fell. Id. The plaintiff stated she 

slipped on “something slippery,” but she did not know if she had stepped on the 

scuppernongs or if they caused her to fall. Id. She did not recall seeing anything 

else on the floor that could have caused her to fall. Id. The Court of Appeals of 

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 7 of 9 
8

Georgia concluded summary judgment was inappropriate because reasonable 

jurors could infer from the above evidence that the scuppernongs caused the 

plaintiff’s fall. Id. at 752.

Here, by contrast, Rosemary did not see a wire on the ground at any point or 

feel the wire as she tripped, and Claude only discovered the wire later that day or 

the next day. Moreover, as discussed above, other objects in the area could have 

caused Rosemary to trip and fall. The Wrights’ speculation that Rosemary tripped 

over the wire, rather than anything else in the area, is insufficient to create a 

genuine issue of fact as to whether there was a causal connection between the 

DISH Network Service employee’s conduct and Rosemary’s injury. See Cordoba 

v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Speculation does not 

create a genuine issue of fact.”); see also Pennington v. WJL, Inc., 589 S.E.2d 259, 

262 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (“A mere possibility of causation [in a trip-and-fall case] 

is not enough and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture 

and the probabilities are at best evenly balanced it is appropriate for the court to 

grant summary judgment to the defendant.”).

Because summary judgment was appropriate with respect to Rosemary’s 

negligence claim, summary judgment also was warranted as to Claude’s loss of 

consortium claim and the Wrights’ claim for punitive damages, given that both 

claims were derivative of Rosemary’s negligence claim. See D.G. Jenkins Homes, 

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 8 of 9 
9

Inc. v. Wood, 582 S.E.2d 478, 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (stating that a claim for 

punitive damages is a derivative claim); Supchak v. Pruitt, 503 S.E.2d 581, 584 

(Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (“[O]ne spouse’s claim for the loss of the other spouse’s 

society or consortium is a derivative one stemming from the right of the other 

spouse to recover for his injuries.”). 

III. CONCLUSION

Summary judgment was warranted as to Rosemary’s negligence claim 

because she failed to establish any of the elements of a negligence claim with 

respect to DISH Network and dishNET Satellite Broadband, and a reasonable jury 

could not find a causal connection between the DISH Network Service employee’s 

alleged conduct and Rosemary’s injury. The Wrights’ remaining claims fail 

because they were derivative of Rosemary’s negligence claim. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-17740 Date Filed: 11/02/2017 Page: 9 of 9