Court Opinion

ID: 9399241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-02 16:01:20.597711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.048908
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2374
                        ___________________________

                                 Michael A. Oien

                                      Plaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware Business Corporation, doing business as The
      Home Depot; Stanley Access Technologies, LLC, a Delaware LLC

                                    Defendants - Appellees
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: March 15, 2023
                              Filed: June 2, 2023
                                ____________

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

      Michael Oien commenced this negligence and product liability action against
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”) and Stanley Access Technologies, LLC
(“Stanley”), alleging he was injured by an automatic sliding door while walking out
of a Home Depot retail store. Oien appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of
summary judgment. We affirm.

I.    BACKGROUND

       In April 2020, Oien loaded the purchases he made at a Home Depot store in
Maplewood, Minnesota, on two flat carts. A Home Depot employee assisted Oien
by pushing one of the carts out of the store while Oien followed, pushing the other.
The exit doors automatically opened for the Home Depot employee and then closed
while Oien was exiting the store, tearing Oien’s right rotator cuff and causing other
injuries. Oien alleged his injuries were caused by the door prematurely closing. The
doors at issue were manufactured, installed, and serviced by Stanley.

      Oien commenced this action in state court in Minnesota, which defendants
removed to federal court. In his complaint, Oien alleged a negligence claim against
Home Depot and claims of strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express
and implied warranties against Stanley. After discovery had closed and summary
judgment briefing was completed, the only expert evidence introduced into the
record was a report submitted by defense counsel, which opined the doors were not
defective or in an unsafe condition at the time of the incident.

       The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all
claims. Specifically, the court found that Oien did not introduce any evidence, other
than his own self-serving statements, to show the automatic doors closed
prematurely. Stated differently, the court found Oien had failed to satisfy his burden
of establishing there was a dangerous condition, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
could not cure this fundamental flaw in Oien’s negligence claim. In addition, the
court found Oien had failed to bring forth any evidence indicating the inspection
procedures used by Home Depot were unreasonable or inadequate, or that a

      1
        The Honorable Katherine M. Menendez, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
                                     -2-
reasonable inspection would have put Home Depot on notice of the alleged
dangerous condition. Finally, the district court found the claims against Stanley
failed because Oien had not (1) identified any evidence—expert or otherwise—
establishing the doors were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (2) shown a
defect existed when the doors left Stanley’s control; or (3) demonstrated a defect in
the doors caused Oien’s injuries.

      On appeal, Oien asserts the district court erred in three ways: (1) when it found
no breach of the standard of care, despite deposition testimony from Home Depot’s
corporate designee regarding inadequate inspections and safety testing; (2) when it
decided there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the doors closed
prematurely; and (3) when it incorrectly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

II.   DISCUSSION

       In this diversity action, we review de novo the district court’s application of
state law, its conclusions of law, and its grant of summary judgment. Pritchett v.
Cottrell, Inc., 512 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). This standard
does not allow us to “weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, or
attempt to discern the truth of any factual issue.” Id. (quoting Thomas v. Corwin,
483 F.3d 516, 526 (8th Cir. 2007)). If, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
then the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)). When assessing materiality, “the substantive law will identify which facts
are material.” Schilf v. Eli Lilly & Co., 687 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). The parties agree that
Oien’s claims are controlled by Minnesota law.

       In his opening brief (or reply brief), Oien did not specify any alleged errors
by the district court regarding the court’s analysis of his claims against Stanley. Oien
has waived any arguments regarding the dismissal of his claims against Stanley. See

                                          -3-
Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812, 819 n.4 (8th Cir. 2021) (declining to consider issues
not raised in the appellants’ opening brief).

      Turning to the claims against Home Depot, Oien contends summary judgment
was inappropriate because there is a genuine dispute among the parties regarding
whether (1) the doors closed prematurely, and (2) Home Depot breached its duty of
care to reasonably inspect the premises and remedy or warn of a dangerous
condition. To establish a negligence claim, four elements must be shown: (1) the
existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and
(4) injury. Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn. 2007). Oien’s
negligence claim fails at the second element. Summary judgment in favor of a
defendant is appropriate “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof” on any
element. Senogles v. Carlson, 902 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).

       A business’s duty to its customers is well settled in Minnesota. Property
owners have a duty to keep and maintain their premises in a reasonably safe
condition. Wolvert v. Gustafson, 146 N.W.2d 172, 173 (Minn. 1966); see Bonniwell
v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 135 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 1965) (noting
reasonable inspection is a duty incident to the maintenance of the premises). The
duty embodies the concept of reasonableness and does not obligate a business to be
“an insurer of the safety of business invitees.” Wolvert, 146 N.W.2d at 173; see
Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc., 132 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn. 1965) (stating
a shopkeeper “owes his customers ordinary care”). If a reasonable inspection would
not reveal a dangerous condition, the owner is not liable under the theory of
negligence for any physical injury caused by the dangerous condition. Olmanson v.
LeSueur Cnty., 693 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn. 2005).

      To survive summary judgment, Oien was required to submit evidence creating
a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating Home Depot either caused a
dangerous condition on its premises, or knew, or should have known, that the
condition existed. Norman, 132 N.W.2d at 749. Oien offered no evidence that
Home Depot caused the alleged dangerous condition or that it had actual knowledge
                                        -4-
of the existence of the alleged dangerous condition. Instead, he argued that Home
Depot should have known of the existence of the problem with the automatic doors.
But Oien did not retain an expert. Nor did he offer evidence demonstrating that
Home Depot should have known the automatic doors might close while a customer
was entering or exiting the store. After Oien called Home Depot to report the
incident, Home Depot’s assistant store manager tested the doors by walking up to
them and pausing by them. She found the doors were opening and closing correctly.
The other evidence in the record regarding the condition of the doors derives from
an expert retained by Home Depot, who opined there is no evidence the door was in
an unsafe condition at the time of the incident and, if it was in an unsafe condition,
there is no evidence Home Depot knew or should have known of the unsafe
condition. Oien offered no evidence to support his assertion that the doors closed
prematurely or to refute the defendants’ evidence.

       Under Minnesota law, “[n]egligence must be predicated on what should have
been reasonably anticipated and not merely on what happened.” Id. (citing Johnson
v. Evanski, 22 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Minn. 1946)). A business’s “duty to keep premises
reasonably safe for customers is to guard, not against all possible consequences, but
only against those which are reasonably to be anticipated in the normal course of
events.” Id. Oien’s assertion of the “mere occurrence” of an accident is insufficient
to establish Home Depot breached its duty to keep its store reasonably safe. See
Bisher v. Homart Dev. Co., 328 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Minn. 1983) (determining
plaintiff failed to present competent evidence to support a negligence claim after
tripping and falling into a planter in a shopping mall when the planter was in plain
view, obvious in its presence, had presented no prior issues for the heavy customer
traffic that existed since 1977); Pape v. Macks, LLC, No. A10-1417, 2011 WL
1466433, *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011) (unpublished) (requiring the plaintiff,
who was injured when a glass shower door in a hotel room fell and struck his foot,
to offer some evidence that an inspection of the door would have revealed the alleged
defect).

                                         -5-
        Because Oien did not submit any evidence indicating the automatic sliding
doors were unsafe or an inspection of the doors would have revealed the alleged
dangerous condition, Home Depot is entitled to summary judgment on Oien’s
negligence claim. See Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 898 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir.
2018) (Once the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact, the other side must identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for
trial beyond showing “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” (citations
omitted)).

       Further, the facts here do not warrant application of res ipsa loquitur. To
apply the doctrine, a plaintiff must show that the accident was (1) of a kind which
ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) caused by an instrument
within the defendant’s exclusive control; and (3) not due to plaintiff’s conduct.
Staub as Trustee of Weeks v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, 964 N.W.2d 613, 636 n.12
(Minn. 2021). At the summary judgment stage, Oien is not required to definitively
establish each element but must point to “enough evidence that the three conditions
exist so as to make it a jury question as to whether they exist or not.” Stearns v.
Plucinski, 482 N.W.2d 496, n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

        Oien testified during his deposition that he “walked into the door” and offered
no evidence that there was a defect or other unsafe condition that caused the doors
to close prematurely on him. While an automatic sliding door does not ordinarily
close while someone is passing through it, Oien produced no evidence, other than
his mere assertions, that a door malfunction caused his injury. He has failed to
satisfy his burden. See Hoven v. Rice Mem’l Hosp., 396 N.W.2d 569, 572 (Minn.
1986) (“When the injury could have been caused with substantially equal probability
from other causes as well as any acts of defendants, facts, other than just the fact of
injury itself from which defendant’s negligence may be inferred, must exist before
a res ipsa loquitur issue can be submitted to the jury.”). The district court did not
err in rejecting the application of res ipsa loquitur given the facts of this case.

                                         -6-
III.   CONCLUSION

    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision granting
summary judgment in favor of Home Depot.
                     ______________________________

                                      -7-