FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T AUGUST 17, 2009

THOMAS K. KAH

N
CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 8

- 1 6 6 5 2

N o n

- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 1 1 0 8

- C V

- T

- S

M A R G A R E T W I L L I A M S

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t

,

v e r s u 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 l l e e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( A u g u s t 1 7

, 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e C A R N E S

, W I L S O N a n d K R A V I T C H

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M :

I n t h i s s l i p

- a n d

- f

a l l c a s e , P l a i n t i f

f

- A p p e l l a n t M a r g a r e t W i l l i a m s a p p e a l s t h ed i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f D e f

e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e W a l

M a r t S t o r e s , I n c

. ( “ W a l

- M a r t ” )

.

W i l l i a m s ’ a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s t h a t w h i l e s h o p p i n g i n W a l

- M a r t

, s h e

s l i p p e d o n a p u d d l e o f w a t e r , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n i n j u r y t o h e r l e g , h i p , a n d s h o u l d e r

.

W i l l i a m s s e e k s c o m p e n s a t o r y a n d p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s f o r n e g l i g e n c e a n d

w a n t o n n e s s , b a s e d o n W a l

- M a r t ’ s e m p l o y e e s ’ a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o d e t e c t a n d c l e a n u p

t h e l i q u i d

.

W a l

- M a r t m o v e d f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

, a r g u i n g t h a t W i l l i a m s h a d n o t m e t

h e r b u r d e n , u n d e r A l a b a m a n e g l i g e n c e l a w , o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t W a l

- M a r t h a d : 1

( 1 ) a c t u a l n o t i c e o f t h e p u d d l e ; ( 2 ) c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e ; o r ( 3 ) t h a t t h e s t o r e w a s

o t h e r w i s e d e l i n q u e n t f

o r f a i l i n g t o d i s c o v e r a n d r e m o v e t h e h a z a r d

. W i l l i a m s

r e p l i e d t h a t s h e h a d p r o f f e r e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e c o n s t r u c t i v e

n o t i c e a n d / o r d e l i n q u e n c y o n t h e p a r t o f W a l

- M a r t

, a n d

, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , a n a d v e r s e

i n f e r e n c e s h o u l d b e d r a w n a g a i n s t W a l

- M a r t b e c a u s e i t a l l e g e d l y d e s t r o y e d o r

w i t h h e l d v i d e o s u r v e i l l a n c e t a p e s f r o m W i l l i a m s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t

W i l l i a m s h a d n o t m e t h e r b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g n o t i c e , r e j e c t e d W i l l i a m s ’ s p o l i a t i o n

a r g u m e n t

, a n d g r a n t e d s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f W a l

- M a r t o n b o t h t h e

Be cause jurisdiction in thi s case is based on diver sity of citizenship, the forum state’s 1 substantive law applies. See McMaha n v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120, 1131-32 ( 11th Cir. 2001).

2n e g l i g e n c e a n d w a n t o n n e s s c l a i m s

. W i l l i a m s n o w a p p e a l s t o t h i s c o u r t

. 2

A f t e r a t h o r o u g h r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d b r i e f s , w e a r e i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t W i l l i a m s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t a s t o

w h e t h e r W a l

- M a r t w a s n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o c l e a n u p t h e w a t e r t h a t W i l l i a m s

a l l e g e d l y s l i p p e d o n a n d t h a t W i l l i a m s ’ s p o l i a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e a r g u m e n t i s

m e r i t l e s s

.

F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s t h o r o u g h a n d w e l l

- r e a s o n e d

o p i n i o n , w e a f

f i r m t h e g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f W a l

- M a r t

.

A F F I R M E D

.

Wil liams does not challeng e the district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt on the 2

wantonness c laim. This issue has been a bandoned. See Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F .3d 1269, 1274 n.4 (11th Cir. 2008).

3