* Pursu ant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-60054

Summary Calendar

__________________

MYRA LEIGH,

Plaintiff -Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC.; LONNIE LUKER,

Defendants - Appellees.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

(3:95-CV-3)

______________________________________________

June 27, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: *

In this "slip and fall" case, Myra Leigh appeals from a

summary judgment granted in favor of def endants Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc. and store manager Lonnie Luker. We affirm.

On June 27, 1993, while shopping with h er husband at a WalMart, Leigh stepped into a puddle of a cleaning product and slipped

and fell to the floor. Leigh alleges that the spill was caused by2

a leak from the bottom of a bottle of Pine Fresh that had fallen to

the floor, cr acked, and was later replaced on the merchandise

display. Leigh sued Wal-Mart and the store manager in Mississippi

state court alleging: 1) negligence in allowing the puddle to exist

on the premises; and 2) negligent display of merchandise. Wal-Mart

removed to federal court on the basis of diversity.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants

on both claims. The court found that Leigh could not prevail on

the premises liability claim because the summary judgment evidence

reflected that the puddle was not created by a Wal-Mart employee

and Wal-Mart had neither actual nor constructive notice of the

spill. The court rejected the negligent display claim on the basis

that there was no evidence that the display was unreasonably safe

and, even if the there was negligent display, the display was not

the proximate cause of Leigh's injuries. Leigh now appeals.

We review a summary judgment under well-established standards.

Blakeney v. Lomas Info. Sys., Inc.

, 65 F. 3d 482, 484 (5th Cir.

1995), cert. denied

, 116 S. Ct. 1042 (1996); see Sterling Property

Management, Inc. v. Texas Commerce Bank, Nat'l Ass'n

, 32 F.3d 964,

966 (5th Cir. 1994).

To recove r for negligence, Leigh has the burden of

establishing that Wal-Mart had a legal duty to Leigh, Wal-Mart

breach the duty, and that she s ustained injuries proximately

resul ting from the breach. S ee Hardy v. K Mart Corp.

, 669 So.2d

34, 37-38 (Miss. 1996). In the context of a "slip and fall" claim,1 Leigh's husband testified that the spill was three to four

feet in diameter after Leigh had fallen in it. Mrs. Leigh offered

no testimony as to the size of the spill.

3 Leigh must produce evidence that: 1) a negligent act of Wal-Mart

caused her injury; or 2) Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the

dangerous condition; or 3) the d angerous condition existed long

enough to impute constructive knowledge. Id. at 38.

Summary judgment was appropriate in this case. As to the

"puddle claim," there was no evidence that an employee of Wal-Mart

caused the spill. Similarly, there is no summary judgment evidence

that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the spill. In fact,

assistant manager Brian Magee testified that he walked through the

area two to three minutes before the fall and saw no spill. Leigh

speculates that the spill must have been on the floor long enough

to constitute constructive knowledge because of th e spill's size 1

and the small crack in the bottom of the leaky bottle. As the

d istrict court properly noted, Leigh's conjecture on this issue

does not amount to evidence sufficient to withstand summary

judgment. We do not indulge in presumptions on the length of time

an unsafe condition may have existed; a plaintiff must present

specific evidence on this point. D ickens v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

,

841 F. Supp. 768, 771 (S.D. Miss. 1994). Leigh presented no

evidence as t o the length of time the spill was present. In

contrast, Wal-Mart presented sworn testimony that the spill was not

there just minutes before the accident. Consequently, there is no

summary judgment evidence sufficient to establish constructive4

notice.

Similarly, the negligent display claim cannot survive summary

judgment. The owner of a business is not an insurer against all

injuries. W aller v. Dixieland Food Stores, Inc.

, 492 So.2d 283,

285 (Miss. 1986). Wal-Mart's duty as a business owner is to keep

the premises reasonably safe and, when not, to warn of dangers not

in plain view. M cGovern v. Scarborough

, 566 So.2d 1225, 1228

( Miss. 1990). While Leigh presented evidence of alternative

display techniques, there is no summary judgment evidence that WalMart's display was unreasonable. Instead, Wal-Mart presented

testimony that reasonable care was properly exercised.

Additionally, there is no question that the display at issue was

clearly in plain view.

Moreover, even assumin g arguendo that the merchandise was

displayed in a negligent fashion, Leigh cannot demonstrate that the

display was the proximate cause of her injuries. The proximate

cause of an injury is that caus e which in natural and continuous

sequence unbroken by any intervening cause prod uces the injury.

Grish am v. John Q. Long V.F.W. Post , 519 So.2d 413, 417 (Miss.

1988). As the district court properly noted, this is not a case

where Leigh knocked over the display and became injured. Rather,

Leigh asserts that somehow a bottle dropped, beca me cracked, and

was replaced on the display. Given this intervening cause, the

manner of display cannot be characterized as the proximate cause of

her alleged injuries.5

Finally, Leigh's reliance on Hardy is misplaced. In H ardy

,

the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed a summary judgment granted

in favor of a business owner involving a slip and fall. Unlike the

instant case, in Hardy there was conflicting summary judgment

evidence as to whether employees of the store had actual knowledge

of the spill. 669 So.2d at 39. Additionally, the assistant

manager testified that stacking paint cans higher than three layers

was unsafe; there was evidence that displays in the store were

stacked five levels high. I d. at 38. Consequently, there was some

evidence of admission of breach of care. The Mississippi Supreme

Court, applying the Mississippi sta te summary judgment standard,

concluded tha t the trial court had insufficiently complete facts

before it thereby precluding summary judgment. Id. In contrast,

Leigh has presented no summary judgment evidence to contradict WalMart's evidence that negates the negligence claim s. H ardy is

therefore easily distinguishable from the instant case.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.