Court Opinion

ID: 9891595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 00:00:38.579478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:27.691938
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60127         Document: 00516936017             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60127
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               October 18, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Hannah Moody,                                                                       Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Walmart, Inc.; John or Jane Does 1-10; Wal-Mart Stores
   East, L.P.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:19-CV-537
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          A jury found that Hannah Moody failed to show that Walmart was
   negligent in a premises liability case. Moody argues that she is entitled to a
   new trial because the district court admitted evidence that Moody had used

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60127         Document: 00516936017              Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                          No. 23-60127

   marijuana in the past, which she contends is impermissible character evi-
   dence. The district court denied her request. We AFFIRM.
                                                I.
          Around midnight on September 3, 2016, Moody was shopping at
   Walmart when several boxes fell off a pallet jack being pulled by a Walmart
   employee and hit her. Claiming that the fallen boxes injured her, Moody sued
   Walmart for premises liability. 1 Walmart moved for summary judgment,
   which the district court denied as to the premises-liability claim after finding
   that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding how high the boxes
   were stacked on the pallet, their stability on the pallet, and thus whether
   Walmart created a dangerous condition.
          Before trial, Moody filed a motion in limine to exclude medical records
   and other evidence that Moody used marijuana as irrelevant and likely to
   confuse or mislead the jury. The district court granted the motion with
   respect to a statement in Moody’s medical records suggesting that she was
   smoking marijuana while breastfeeding, but otherwise denied it. Specifically,
   the district court found that there was circumstantial evidence that Moody
   was impaired at the time of the incident and therefore evidence of Moody’s
   marijuana use would speak directly to her credibility as a witness and whether
   she was contributorily negligent. Moody did not challenge or otherwise
   object to the admission of this evidence on any other grounds.
          After a four-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor
   of Walmart, finding that Moody had failed to show that Walmart was
   negligent. Consistent with the verdict form’s instructions, the jury did not

          _____________________
          1
              Moody’s complaint included several other claims not relevant to this appeal.

                                                2
Case: 23-60127        Document: 00516936017              Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                         No. 23-60127

   reach the issue of whether Walmart had shown that Moody was
   contributorily negligent.
           Moody moved for a new trial, arguing that the district court’s
   admission of evidence of Moody’s marijuana use violated Federal Rule of
   Evidence 404(b)’s prohibition on the use of character evidence. The district
   court denied the motion, concluding that Moody failed to preserve her
   objection, and, in any event, exclusion of the evidence of her marijuana use
   would not have changed the verdict. Moody appeals.
                                              II.
           Normally, we review for abuse of discretion both the district court’s
   admission of evidence, Wantou v. Wal-Mart Stores Tex. L.L.C., 23 F.4th 422,
   432 (5th Cir. 2022), and its denial of a motion for a new trial, Apache
   Deepwater, L.L.C. v. W&T Offshore, Inc., 930 F.3d 647, 653 (5th Cir. 2019).
   But if the appellant did not preserve his or her objections to an evidentiary
   ruling, we review only for plain error. See C.P. Interests, Inc. v. Cal. Pools Inc.,
   238 F.3d 690, 697 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Garriott v. NCsoft Corp., 661 F.3d
   243, 248–49 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that an evidentiary objection raised for
   the first time in a motion for a new trial and not considered on its merits by
   the district court is not preserved and thus reviewed only for plain error). 2
           “Even improper evidentiary rulings do not constitute reversible error
   unless ‘a substantial right of the party is affected.’” Gates v. Shell Oil, 812
   F.2d 1509, 1512 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)). A party’s
   substantial rights are affected if, for example, “the erroneously admitted

           _____________________
           2
             Walmart contends that Moody waived her Rule 404(b) objection by failing to raise
   it before or during trial. Because we conclude that the complained-of evidence would not
   have altered the outcome of the case, Moody’s appeal fails regardless of whether we review
   for plain error or abuse of discretion, and therefore we do not need to resolve this issue.

                                               3
Case: 23-60127        Document: 00516936017         Page: 4   Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                     No. 23-60127

   evidence was the only evidence admitted to prove an element” of a claim.
   Echeverry v. Jazz Casino Co., L.L.C., 988 F.3d 221, 235 (5th Cir. 2021).
   “When a party fails to show that excluding the evidence would have altered
   the outcome of the case, the party has not met its burden for a new trial.” Id.
   (quotation marks and citation omitted).
                                         III.
          Moody argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence of
   her prior marijuana usage at trial. We decline to reach the issue because
   excluding the complained-of evidence would not have altered the outcome of
   the case. See E.R. by E.R. v. Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F.3d 754, 764
   (5th Cir. 2018).
          To establish her premises-liability claim, Moody was required to show
   that (1) Walmart’s negligence injured her, (2) Walmart had knowledge of a
   dangerous condition and failed to warn her, or (3) that the condition existed
   for a long enough time that Walmart should have had knowledge or notice of
   the condition. Criss v. Lipscomb Oil Co., 990 So. 2d 771, 773 (Miss. Ct. App.
   2008). “[M]erely proving the occurrence of an accident within the business
   premises is insufficient to prove liability; rather, the plaintiff must
   demonstrate that the operator of the business was negligent.” Lindsey v. Sears
   Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616, 618 (5th Cir. 1994).
          As the district court explained when it denied Moody’s motion for a
   new trial, Moody repeatedly told the jury that she could not remember what
   happened at Walmart, did not know what caused the boxes to fall, and had
   no evidence proving that Walmart caused the accident. Evidence of Moody’s
   marijuana use could not prove or disprove whether Walmart breached its
   duties. Moody had the burden of proving that Walmart acted negligently, and
   the jury concluded that she failed to do so.

                                          4
Case: 23-60127      Document: 00516936017           Page: 5     Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                     No. 23-60127

          Moody claims that her substantial rights were affected because the
   evidence allowed Walmart to pursue an “improper theme at trial,” i.e., that
   Moody was high on the night of her injury, which caused her to stumble into
   the pallet of boxes. We disagree for two reasons. First, whether Moody was
   impaired on the night of the incident speaks to the issue of contributory
   negligence. The jury did not reach this issue because it found that Moody
   failed to show that Walmart was negligent. Second, as the district court
   explained, any potential prejudice that the marijuana evidence may have
   caused “pale[d] in comparison to the other hits to her credibility” Walmart
   adduced at trial. Specifically, the jury heard that Moody’s doctor recorded
   that Moody had stopped taking her prescribed medication because “it was
   covering up her pain” and she was “building a case” against Walmart, saw
   evidence showing inconsistencies in Moody’s story, 3 and watched Moody
   repeatedly admit during cross examination that prior statements she made
   were false. Thus, we do not find that the admission of the complained-of
   evidence would have altered the outcome of the trial.
                                          IV.
          For the foregoing reasons, we find that Moody failed to show that the
   challenged evidence affected her substantial rights and thus the district court
   did not err in denying her a new trial.
          AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          3
           For instance, Walmart produced medical records and bills that contradicted
   Moody’s assertion that she did not have health insurance.

                                             5