Court Opinion

ID: 9407622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 18:00:52.54055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.292894
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10182        Document: 00516812345             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      July 7, 2023
                                       No. 22-10182
                                     ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Harold Sauls; Linda Sauls,

                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   24 Hour Fitness USA, Incorporated,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:19-CV-953
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         In this premises-liability suit, Plaintiffs-Appellants Harold and Linda
   Sauls (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s grant of Defendant-Appellee
   24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.’s (“24 Hour Fitness”) renewed motion for
   judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict in favor of Appellants.
   We REVERSE and RENDER judgment for Appellants.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10182      Document: 00516812345          Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                    No. 22-10182

                                        I.

          In 2018, Harold Sauls toured a gym operated by 24 Hour Fitness in
   Texas. A 24 Hour Fitness employee led the tour and brought Mr. Sauls to
   the gym’s “wet area” containing the pool, in ground-hot tub, sauna, and
   steam room. Prior to Mr. Sauls’ arrival, the hot tub was drained to replace a
   lightbulb. There were no warnings or barriers around the hot tub, even
   though it was standard practice to post warning signs on the doors and at the
   front desk when the hot tub was drained. The employee held the door open
   for Mr. Sauls to enter the wet area. After taking approximately six steps into
   the wet area, Mr. Sauls lost his footing and fell into the empty hot tub,
   resulting in serious injuries.
          Appellants filed a premises liability suit against 24 Hour Fitness in
   Texas state court for damages they sustained as a result of the fall. 24 Hour
   Fitness removed the case to federal court. The case proceeded to trial, and
   at the close of Appellants’ evidence, 24 Hour Fitness moved for judgment as
   a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), arguing that the
   empty hot tub was an open and obvious condition. The district court
   reserved ruling on the motion and submitted the case to the jury.
          At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Mr. Sauls ten percent at
   fault and 24 Hour Fitness ninety percent at fault. The jury awarded
   $1,435,505.28 to Mr. Sauls for past and future physical pain, mental anguish,
   physical impairment, and medical expenses. The jury also awarded $81,000
   to Mrs. Sauls for past and future loss of household services and loss of
   consortium.
          Before the district court entered judgment, 24 Hour Fitness renewed
   its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil
   Procedure 50(b), again asserting that the evidence was legally insufficient to
   support the jury’s verdict because the hot tub was open and obvious. The

                                         2
Case: 22-10182      Document: 00516812345            Page: 3     Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                      No. 22-10182

   district court granted the motion, vacated the jury verdict, and dismissed the
   claims, finding that “[t]he caselaw overwhelming[ly] supports the conclusion
   that the hot tub is an open and obvious condition as a matter of law.”
   Appellants timely appealed.

                                          II.

          “A motion for judgment as a matter of law. . . in an action tried by jury
   is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s
   verdict.” Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir.
   2001) (citations omitted). Thus, “[a] jury verdict must be upheld unless
   ‘there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find’ as
   the jury did.” Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1998)
   (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).) (emphasis added). In other words, “[a]
   post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law should only be granted
   when the facts and inferences point so strongly in favor of the movant that a
   rational jury could not reach a contrary verdict.” Thomas v. Hughes, 27 F.4th
   995, 1008 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted).
          Our court reviews a district court’s ruling on a motion for judgment
   as a matter of law de novo. Id. Although our review is de novo, we recognize
   that “our standard of review with respect to a jury verdict is especially
   deferential.” Brown v. Bryan County, OK., 219 F.3d 450, 456 (5th Cir. 2000)
   (citation omitted).
          The court must review all of the evidence in the record, “drawing all
   reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict,” Thomas v.
   Tex. Dept. of Crim. Just., 220 F.3d 389, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2000) (citations
   omitted), and “in favor of the nonmoving party, but making no credibility
   determinations or weighing any evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
   Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 135 (2000) (citations omitted).

                                           3
Case: 22-10182          Document: 00516812345           Page: 4      Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                         No. 22-10182

                                             III.

             24 Hour Fitness asserts that the hot tub was open and obvious as a
   matter of law and therefore it owed no duty to warn. Under Texas law,1 a
   property owner’s duty is to “make safe or warn of unreasonably dangerous
   conditions that are not open and obvious or otherwise known to the invitee.”
   Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 203 (Tex. 2015).
                 A hazard is considered open and obvious “when the evidence
   conclusively establishes that an invitee would have ‘knowledge and full
   appreciation of the nature and extent of danger,’ such that ‘knowledge and
   appreciation of the danger are considered as proved as a matter of law.’” Los
   Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C. v. Valdez, 622 S.W.3d 771, 788 (Tex. 2021)
   (citation omitted). This is an objective inquiry that asks “what a reasonably
   prudent person would have known under similar circumstances.”                         Id.
   (citation omitted). “To properly apply an objective test, we must consider
   the ‘totality of’ the ‘particular’ circumstances the plaintiff faced.” Id. at 788-
   89 (citations omitted).
             On appeal, the parties dispute whether 24 Hour Fitness owed Mr.
   Sauls a duty to warn.          24 Hour Fitness contends that the “evidence
   conclusively proves that, objectively, the hot tub was open and obvious.”
   Appellants assert that Mr. Sauls did not have knowledge of the nature and
   extent of the danger and the district court failed to consider the totality of the
   particular circumstances Mr. Sauls faced when granting judgment as a matter
   of law.

             _____________________
             1
             We apply Texas substantive law to this diversity case. See Austin v. Kroger Tex.
   L.P., 746 F.3d 191, 196 (5th Cir. 2014).

                                               4
Case: 22-10182         Document: 00516812345               Page: 5       Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                           No. 22-10182

           Here, Mr. Sauls is a 79-year-old man with a hearing impediment. The
   totality of the particular circumstances Mr. Sauls faced included no prior
   knowledge of the facility or the location of the hot tub,2 no warning as to the
   fact that the hot tub would be empty and located approximately five feet away
   from the door,3 and his attention was simultaneously diverted away from the
   hot tub by 24 Hour Fitness’ tour guide.4

           _____________________
           2
              The plaintiff’s knowledge and degree of familiarity are relevant to the open and
   obvious inquiry and whether a defendant owes a duty to warn. See e.g., Brookshire Grocery
   Co. v. Goss, 262 S.W.3d 793, 795 (Tex. 2008) (holding that there is no duty to warn of
   hazards already appreciated where plaintiff had previously encountered the hazard and was
   able to safely navigate around it); Dunn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-1187-K, 2018
   WL 4772408, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2018) (holding no duty to warn where plaintiff
   admitted that she saw the raised floor mat before entering the store and actively tried to
   avoid it); Jordan v. Tex. Children’s Hosp., No. 14-17-00699-CV, 2018 WL 4137209, at *4
   (Tex. App. —Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 30, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding no duty to
   warn where plaintiff “was familiar with the ramp’s condition, and he was making his
   second or third trip up the ramp when he fell.”); Reeves v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., No.
   AU-16-CA-00615-SS, 2018 WL 405120, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2018) (holding no duty
   to warn where plaintiff walked past the hazard at least twice before eventually tripping over
   it); Hughes v. Kroger Tex. L.P., No. 3:15-CV-0806-M, 2016 WL 3390510, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
   Mar.4, 2016) (holding no duty to warn of hazard where plaintiff “had shopped at the store
   several times.”). Notably, the district court’s consideration of prior cases did not consider
   Mr. Sauls’ lack of knowledge and degree of familiarity – inquiries pertinent to determining
   whether a hazard is open and obvious.
           3
             The jury heard testimony from an expert architect that an empty hot tub only
   about five feet from the doorway is a very dangerous condition with an extreme degree of
   risk. An expert forensic engineer specializing in aquatic design and safety also testified that
   it was inappropriate to leave an empty spa unattended in an open condition and the failure
   to post warning signs or a physical barrier violated applicable codes.
           4
              A property owner “may still owe a duty to an invitee with respect to an open and
   obvious condition where the landowner ‘has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention
   may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious.’” Reeves, 2018 WL 405120,
   at *3 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) cmt. f (1965)); see also, e.g., Houston
   Sports Ass’n v. Russell, 450 S.W.2d 741, 746 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1970,
   writ ref’d n.r.e.) (finding that “[i]t could reasonably have been foreseen that those on the
   tours would naturally have their interests distracted by the features of the stadium”).

                                                 5
Case: 22-10182      Document: 00516812345           Page: 6     Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                     No. 22-10182

          After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, we cannot say that
   “the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in [24 Hour
   Fitness’] favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary conclusion.”
   Coffel v. Stryker Corp., 284 F.3d 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
   Regardless of any conflicting evidence in the record, “we are not free to
   reweigh the evidence or to re-evaluate credibility of witnesses” and cannot
   “substitute for the jury’s reasonable factual inferences other inferences that
   we may regard as more reasonable.” McBeth v. Carpenter, 565 F.3d 171, 176
   (5th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Thus, drawing all reasonable inferences
   in favor of Appellants and to the jury verdict, which overwhelmingly found
   24 Hour Fitness ninety percent at fault for the injuries, we find there is a
   legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Appellants.
   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
          Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in granting 24
   Hour Fitness’ motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). For
   these reasons, we REVERSE and RENDER judgment for Appellants.

                                           6