Opinion ID: 1160208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence of a Foreign Substance

Text: On appeal, the Downens challenge two of the district court's findings, numbers five and six: 5. Little America has the shower units wiped dry after each use. They are cleaned regularly with Quick Clean a commonly used commercial cleaner, specifically recommended for floors and bathroom tile. They do not wax the shower floors. 6. The dressing room and shower unit used by plaintiffs was clean and in good order. The faucets did not leak. The floor of the shower was dry. There were no foreign substances on the floor. Downens argue that Quick Clean is a foreign substance and point to interrogatory and deposition answers that the cleaner was applied and wiped dry. Downens characterize these answers as admissions the cleaner was not rinsed from the showers and, therefore, evidence that the shower floor was coated with a foreign substance. They argue that since it is disputed whether there was a foreign substance on the floor, summary judgment was inappropriate and should be reversed. The record reveals the court concluded there was no evidence of a foreign substance based on deposition testimony. Mrs. Downen stated: Q. Were there any foreign substances on the floor? A. No. Not that I could see.       Q. Did you ever touch the surface with your hands to determine A. To insure that it was dry? Q. No, to determine if it was slick for any reason? A. No, just like I said, it looked so shiny and clean, just Q. So you are basing your opinion that it was slippery on the fact that you fell? A. That I fell, yes. Q. Anything else? A. I don't know, you know, the type of cleaning agents that they might have used or anything else about it so I can't, you know, I can't give you any kind of opinion on that. After a movant has adequately supported the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing there are genuine issues of material fact. WYO.R.CIV.P. 56(e); Hyatt v. Big Horn Sch. Dist. No. 4, 636 P.2d 525, 528 (Wyo.1981). The opposing party must affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, Boehm v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 748 P.2d 704, 710 (Wyo.1987), and cannot rely only upon allegations and pleadings, Hyatt, 636 P.2d at 530, and conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient to satisfy the opposing party's burden. Boehm, 748 P.2d at 710. Downens' brief in opposition to the summary judgment motion did not argue the issue of whether there was any foreign object or substances present and did not reference any specific facts that a foreign substance was present. Our review of Downens' supporting materials [2] and all other materials before the district court did not reveal any specific facts that a foreign substance was present. There is not any evidence the floor was coated with cleaner or the floor was slippery. Our review indicates Downens never asked whether the floor was rinsed after the cleaner was applied, and the deposition testimony does not support their assertion that the floor was not rinsed. Mrs. Downen's opinion that the floor must have been slippery because she fell and because it looked shiny is not specific factual evidence that a foreign substance was present. See LaBart v. Hotel Vendome Corp., 213 F.Supp. 958, 959 (D.Mass.1963). Mrs. Downen's belief that a cleaner might have caused the floor to be slippery is also not specific, factual evidence. See Pearce v. Motel 6, Inc., 28 Wash.App. 474, 624 P.2d 215, 218 (1981). Mrs. Downen's factually unsupported statements or opinions are insufficient to satisfy her burden in opposing summary judgment. Bluejacket v. Carney, 550 P.2d 494, 497 (Wyo.1976) ( the plaintiff must show a reason for slipping and falling ). The district court correctly determined the foreign substance evidence did not present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sinclair had negligently acted or failed to act.