Case Name: Carrie FRIED, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried; Robert Fried, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-30
Citations: 345 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 09-30152
Parties: Carrie FRIED, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried; Robert Fried, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 345
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
Carrie FRIED, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried; Robert Fried, Individually and on behalf of their minor child Abigail Fried, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-30152
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 2009.
Jeremiah A. Sprague, Falcon Law Firm, Marrero, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Stephen Charles Resor, Nathan Merritt Gaudet, Sullivan, Stolier & Resor, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carrie and Robert Fried appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this personal injury suit filed on behalf of their minor daughter. We AFFIRM.
The Frieds argue that the defendant's employee was subject to a heightened duty of care owed to young children rather than to the usual reasonable person standard. They did not advance this argument in the district court, and we ordinarily do not consider new theories raised on appeal. See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131-32 n. 10 (5th Cir.1992). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the witness's description of how the accident occurred provides no evidence that the defendant's employee breached any duty of care, heightened or otherwise, when she opened the restroom door and it closed suddenly. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); cf. Brown v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 671 So.2d 1195, 1197 (La.Ct.App.1996) (although motorist driving near children has a heightened duty, driver must act appro priately and is not an insurer of every child's safety).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5tii Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.