FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13152 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -013 83 -C V -M H S -1 M C C O I E J O N E S , a s n e x t B e s t F r ie n d o f

D J , a M in o r , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, A N D R E A J O N E S , a s n e x t B e s t F r ie n d o f

D J , a M in o r , P la in tif f , v ersu s W A L - M A R T S T O R E S I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 27, 2007)Orig inally , J ones had brought suit against W al-Mar t Stores, Inc., but af

ter lea rningthat 1 thetr uepa rt y de fend ant w a s Wa l- Mart Re a l E stateB us ine ss Tru st, heame nd e d h is c omp la int to ref lect this fac t. 2 B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n thi s pr e m i s e s l i a bi l i ty c a s e , P l a i nt i f f M c C oi e J one s , i ndi vi dua l l y a nd on behal f of hi s m i no r s on , D J, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s J un e 14, 20 07 order g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en ti n fav o r o f D efen d an tW al -M artR eal E st at e B u si n ess T ru st d /b /a W al-M ar t S to re s E as t, L P (“W al-M ar t”) o n all claim s in Jo n es ’s 1 c o m p la in t. A f

te rr e v ie w , w e a f

f ir m . T he fa ct s, desc ri bed i n m ore det ai l i n t he di stri ctcourt ’ s order , ar e a s fol l ow s. O n D ec em ber 7, 20 05 , D J a nd hi s gra nd m ot her, E l i za bet h W ar ner, vi si t ed th e W a l- M a r t s to r e in C e d a r to w n , G e o r g ia , f o rW a r n e rto h a v e a p r e s c r ip tio n f ille d . W hi l e W a r ne rw a s a tthe pha r m a c y c ount e r , D J , w ho w a s f oury e a r s ol d a tthe t i m e , w a s s t a ndi ng a f

e w f e e ta w a y , a torne a ra m e t a l pa m phl e tr a c k. T he pa m phl e tr a c k w a s c onne c t e d t o a c ount e rne xtt o the pha r m a c y w a l l a nd hung a f e w i nc he s of

f the f l oor . T he pa m phl e tr a c k f e l l s tr a i ghtdow n t o the f l oor , l a ndi ng on the t op of D J’ s f

oo t . T he i m pactfr ac tured D J’ s bi g t oe. Jones s ued W al -M ar t t o reco v er m ed i cal , p ai n an d su fferi n g , an d o th er d am ag es. U nd erG eorgi a l aw , an ow ner or occupi erof l and i s l i abl e f or any i nj uri esWe reviewa grant of summar y judgme nt de novo, applying thesame leg al standard as 2 did the district court. Optimum Techs., Inc. v. He nkel Consumer Adhe sives, Inc., 496 F .3d 3 suff er ed by i nv i t ee s ont o h i s l and t hatar e c ause d b y hi s f ai l ure t o exerci se ordi nary ca re i n k ee pi ng the prem i se s s af e. O . C . G . A . § 5 1-3-1. T o rec ov er , the i nv i t ee

“ m us ts how ( 1) tha tthe de f e nda ntha d a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge of the ha z a r d a nd ( 2) tha tthe pl a i nt i f f l a c ke d know l e dge of

the ha z a r d de s pi t e the e xe r c i s e of

or di na r y c a r e due t o a c t i ons orc ondi t i ons w i thi n the c ontr ol of the ow ne r . ” R obe r t s v. W a l - M a r tS t or e s , I nc . , ___ S . E . 2d ___, N o. A 07A 0862, 2007 W L 2 3 8 6 4 6 1 , a t * 1 ( G a . C t. A p p . A u g . 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e p r o p r ie to r ’s lia b ility is gr ounde d i n hi s “ s upe r i orknow l e dge ” of the ha z a r d. S e e B a l l a r d v. S . R e g’ l M e d. C tr ., 4 5 3 S .E .2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 4 ( G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) . T he di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed t hatthere w as no evi dence thatW al -M ar thad a c tua l know l e dge of

the ha z a r d. F ur the r m or e , i the l d tha tno c ons truc t i ve kn ow l edge coul d b e i m pu t ed t o W al -M ar tbeca use, as sum i ng thatthe pam ph l et ra ck w as defe ct i vel y c on struct ed or i nst al l ed, W al -M ar tcoul d n othave eas i l y s ee n ( a nd thus e l i m i na t e d) the ha z a r dous c ondi t i on. F i na l l y , J one s ha d notof f e r e d a ny e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f

e c t e x is te d a s u f

f ic ie n t le n g th o f

tim e th a t W a l- M a r t s h o u ld have di sc ov er ed i tdu ri ng a r ea sonabl e i nspect i on . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t to W a l- M a r t. A f t e ra de novo r e vi e w , w e a gr e e w i th the c onc l us i ons r e a c he d by the 21231, 1241 (11th Cir. 2007). Under that standard, w e dete rmine whe ther, view ing all facts and inferences in the light most favorableto the non-movant, thereis no genuine issue as to any mate ri a l f a c t. I d. Mo re ov e r, summa ry judgme nt i s r e qu ir e d ag a ins t “ [any] part y wh o f a ils to make a showingsufficie nt to establish the exi stenceof an e lement essential to that par ty ’s ca se, and on which that party

will bear theburden of

proof at trial.” I d. (quotation marks a nd citation omitted). 4 di s tr i c tc our ti n i t s thor ough a nd w e l l r e a s one d or de r . A l l of J one s ’ s a r gum e nt s on a p p e a l la c k m e r it, a n d o n ly tw o o f th e m w a r r a n t f

u r th e rd is c u s s io n . F i r s t , J one s c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t , i n de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe r e w a s no evi dence thatW al -M ar thad actual kn ow l edge of t he hazar d, i gn ored or m i ss t at ed th e d ep o si t i o n t est i m o n y o f t h e st o re m an ag er, H o p e R ad fo rd . A cco rd i n g t o Jo n es, “R a d f o r d . . . te s tif

ie d th a t th e [ p a m p h le t] r a c k . . . w a s n o t m o u n te d a s it n o r m a lly s h o u ld h a v e b e e n ” a n d “w a s n o t a tta c h e d to th e c o u n te rw h e r e it w a s s u p p o s e d to be . ” T hi s t e s t i m ony , J one s c ont e nds , c r e a t e s a j ur y que s t i on. R a df or d’ s t e s t i m ony doe s nots uppor tJ one s ’ s c ont e nt i on. I n the r e l e va nt por t i on of

hi s de pos i t i on, R a df

or d s t a t e d, i n r e f

e r e nc e t o phot ogr a phs t a ke n of the p am p h l etrack aft er t h e i n ci d en t , th atth e p am p h l etrack as d ep i ct ed i n th o se phot ogr a phs w a s notm ount e d a s s uc h r a c ks nor m a l l y w e r e s uppos e d t o be m ount e d, a nd w a s nota t t a c he d t o the c ount e r . T hi s i s uns urpr i s i ng, a s the phot ogr a phs s how the pa m phl e tr a c k s t a ndi ng on the f l oora f t e ri tf e l l , a nd the part i es agre e thatatthe t i m e of the i nci dentthe ra ck w as hang i ng a f ew i nches off the grou nd . B ec ause R adford’ s t es t i m on y c on ce rns the st atus of t he pam ph l etra ckJ ones’s c ontention that the district court ignored Radf ord’s testimony

in concludingthat 3 Jone s h a d n ot o ff

e re d a ny e vid e nc e of

ho w l on gthea lle g e d d e fe c t had e xiste d is sim ila rly erroneous. Radford testified mere ly that “[t] he fixture [i .e., the pamphlet rac k] was up for several wee ks,” not that the def ect ha d exis ted for that long. As me ntioned above, Ra dford g ave no testimony

as to the def

ectivene ss vel non of the pamphlet rac k before DJ’s injury . Jone s a lso argue s th at Wa l- Ma rt ’s status a s c on str

uc tor of thepamph le t r a c k ra ise s a 4 conclusive presumption of knowledg e as to de fec ts in the placeme nt of the ra ck; however, he cites no authority

that supports this propositi on. 5 a f t e rD J ’ s i nj ur y , i ns t e a d of be f or e i t , thi s t e s t i m ony i s notm a t e r i a l t o the i s s ue of w het her W al -M ar thad sup er i or kn ow l edge, ac tual or const ruct i ve, of any def ec t be f or e the r a c k f

e l l . S e e W i l e y v. W i nn D i xi e S t or e s , I nc . , 420 S . E . 2d 20, 21- 22 (G a. C t . A pp . 19 92 ) ( ho l di ng , i n a sl i p-and-fal l prem i se s l i abi l i ty c as e, thatw het her the ha z a r dous c ondi t i on e xi s t e d a f t e rthe pl a i nt i f

f’ s f a l l w a s i r r e l e va nt ; the r e l e va nt i nqui r y w a s w he the rthe pr opr i e t orha d a c tua l orc ons truc t i ve know l e dge of the haza rd before the i nj ury occ urre d). 3 S e c ond, J one s c l a i m s tha t“ [ a ] s the c ons truc t orof the di s pl a y a nd s t a nd [W al -M art ] i s co n cl u si v el y p resu m ed t o h av e k n o w l ed g e o f t h e d efect s i n [i t s] c ons truc t i on . . . . ” H ow e ve r , J one s doe s noti de nt i f y , a nd w e ha ve notf

ound, a ny 4 r e c or d e vi de nc e i ndi c a t i ng tha tW a l - M a r tc ons truc t e d the pa m phl e tr a c k. I nde e d, R a d f o r d te s tif ie d th a t “a lo t o f

o u rd is p la y s a r e . . . a lr e a d y p r e a s s e m b le d , a n d . . . m ostof ou r departm entm anagers or as soci at es j ustpl ac e the di spl ay s. ” T here fore , e v e n a s s u m in g th a t th e p a m p h le t r a c k its e lf s u f f e r e d f r o m a c o n s tru c tio n d e f

e c t, be c a us e the e vi de nc e doe s noti ndi c a t e tha tW a l - M a r ta c tua l l y c ons truc t e d the6

p a m p h le t r a c k , n o p r e s u m p tio n e x is ts th a t W a l- M a r t k n e w o f th e d e f e c t. In sum , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y det er m i ned t hatJones f ai l ed, as a m att er of l aw , t o est abl i sh thatW al -M ar thad sup er i or kn ow l edge of any danger as soci at ed w i th t he pam ph l etra ck. T here fore , W al -M ar tw as ent i t l ed t o sum m ar y ju d g m e n t. AF F I RME D.