Opinion ID: 2975144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Premises Liability Claim

Text: The district court granted summary judgment having found no evidence either “that WalMart caused or created the puddle of water in which Ms. Bowling fell,” Bowling I, 2005 WL 3560647, at , or that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the problem. Specifically, the district court found nothing to indicate “how long the water had been leaking,” that Defendant’s employees had neglected to make regular inspections, or that such leaks recurred with sufficient frequency to place Defendant on constructive notice of the existence of the puddle. Id. We hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs’ premises liability claim. Tennessee’s substantive law of negligence applies to Plaintiffs’ claim. In Tennessee, to succeed on a suit in negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty of care; (3) the plaintiff suffered some injury or loss; 13 No. 06-5589 (4) cause in fact; and (5) proximate cause. McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. P’ship, 937 S.W.2d 891, 894 (Tenn. 1996). Additionally, to hold an owner or operator of premises liable in negligence for a dangerous or defective condition on its premises, the plaintiff must show either (1) that the premises owner or operator caused the condition, or (2) if not, “that the owner or operator had actual or constructive notice that the condition existed prior to the accident.” Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tenn. 2004) (citing Martin v. Washmaster Auto Ctr., U.S.A., 946 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996)); see also Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 159 F. App’x 626, 627-28 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). “[C]onstructive notice can be established by proof that the dangerous or defective condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition.” Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 764 (citing Simmons v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tenn. 1986)); see also Washmaster Auto Ctr., 946 S.W.2d at 318. Additionally, a plaintiff can prove constructive notice through “a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence.” Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 765-66; see also Washmaster Auto Ctr., 946 S.W.2d at 320. The recurring conduct or continuing condition must be specific to the location where the incident at issue occurred. That is, notice of a general or continuing condition in one area of the premises does not necessarily support a finding of constructive notice as to another area. See Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 767; Martin, 159 F. App’x at 629-30; Tinsley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 155 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2005) (unpublished). 14 No. 06-5589 The district court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Defendant caused the condition, or alternatively, whether Defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding that Defendant caused the condition or had actual notice of the condition. Plaintiffs could therefore survive summary judgment only if record evidence, construed in their favor, demonstrated constructive knowledge. The record does not support a finding that the leak in Defendant’s sporting goods department “existed for such a length of time that [Defendant], in the exercise of reasonable care, should have become aware of the condition.” See Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 764; Washmaster Auto Ctr., 946 S.W.2d at 318. Plaintiff Tammy Bowling testified that the water from the leak was “[a] pretty good bunch of water” on the ground which left her “jeans and shirt and hair . . . wet.” (J.A. at 83) Plaintiff estimated the puddle was two to three feet wide at the time of her fall. Plaintiffs rely on the amount of water to raise an inference that it had been on the floor long enough to be discovered by Defendant. As the district court properly observed, however, “[t]he mere existence of a two-foot to three-foot wide puddle does not indicate that a particular amount of time has passed; the puddle could have been created over the period of ten hours or ten seconds.” Bowling I, 2005 WL 3560647, at . Plaintiffs baldly assert that Defendant “failed to follow its own procedures to safety check for hazards.” (Pl.’s Br. at 18) Defendant does not dispute that its employees were trained to conduct safety sweeps and to promptly address potentially dangerous conditions. Yet, we find nothing to indicate that Defendant’s employees were not following these procedures on the day in question. 15 No. 06-5589 We cannot say that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care inasmuch as the record does not establish how long the roof had been leaking and, correspondingly, how long the puddle existed. Neither does the record reflect “a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence” such that Defendant would be put on notice of the leak in the sporting goods department. See Blair, 130 S.W.3d at 765-66; Washmaster Auto Ctr., 946 S.W.2d at 320. This case is not unlike Martin v. Wal-Mart Stores, another Tennessee diversity suit that came before this Court. In Martin, the plaintiff slipped and fell in Wal-Mart’s health and beauty aids department on what appeared to be water. Martin, 159 F. App’x at 627. As a result of rain earlier that day, the floors were wet in certain parts of the store. Id. Additionally, the store’s roof had leaked in the past, but it had never leaked in the health and beauty aids department. Id. On the question of constructive notice, the Martin court found that “[a] history of leaks and spills in other departments could not have put Wal-Mart on notice of water accumulating in the health and beauty aids department.” Id. at 629. Additionally, although customers occasionally brought wet shopping carts into the department, this did not occur regularly enough “in the part of the store where [the plaintiff] fell” to put Wal-Mart on constructive notice of a dangerous condition. Id. at 629-30 (emphasis added). Here, leaks had occurred in other parts of Defendant’s store on previous occasions – including a leak above the cash registers identified on November 30, 2001 and one above domestics and crafts on January 8, 2002. However, the roof over the sporting goods department had never 16 No. 06-5589 leaked before.4 Although Plaintiffs find it significant that the roof warranty had expired, even taken together with evidence of a leak in two other parts of Defendant’s store, the expired warranty does not show a “general or continuing condition” sufficient to put Defendant on constructive notice of the likelihood that its customers would suffer injury. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment inasmuch as Plaintiffs cannot establish actual or constructive notice of the leak, or that Defendant somehow caused the dangerous condition.5