Court Opinion

ID: 9410356
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 00:00:42.810763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.142844
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60269         Document: 00516827637               Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                   July 20, 2023
                                        No. 22-60269                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   Sandra Nicole Keen,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,

                                                                     Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                                USDC No. 3:20-CV-20

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:* (1)
          This case involves a premises liability lawsuit arising out of an incident
   that took place in a Walmart 2 store. After the close of discovery, Walmart
   moved for summary judgment on grounds that the plaintiff failed to provide
   adequate evidence in support of her claims. The district court granted

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
              Judge Dennis concurs in the judgment only.
          2
             The named defendant-appellee in these proceedings Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,
   is referred to herein as “Walmart.”
Case: 22-60269        Document: 00516827637             Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                         No. 22-60269

   Walmart’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Because the record
   supports the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Walmart, we
   AFFIRM.
                 I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
           During the early evening of August 6, 2018, 3 Sandra Nicole Keen was
   shopping for school supplies with her daughter in a Walmart store in
   Vicksburg, Mississippi. The school supply aisle was busy and crowded with
   other shoppers. At approximately 5:30 p.m., as Keen was waiting for the
   customer ahead of her to move, a box of notebooks fell on her. According to
   Keen, the box was five or six feet wide, weighed about 50 pounds, and
   contained roughly 60 notebooks. After the box fell, Keen told the other
   witnesses that she was fine and left the aisle. She later returned and saw that
   the notebooks had been cleaned up. Although she did not formally report the
   incident to a store employee or manager, she mentioned it to a cashier as she
   was checking out. Keen claims that when she returned home, her neck began
   to hurt. After discussing the matter with her husband, she returned to
   Walmart to file a complaint. She then went to the emergency room in
   Vicksburg where she received medical treatment. She later testified that as a
   result of her injury, she required surgery and rehabilitative therapy.
           In October 2019, Keen filed suit against Walmart in the Warren
   County court in Mississippi. In her complaint she alleged that Walmart was
   liable for her injuries from the incident because it failed to maintain its
   premises in a reasonably safe condition, created an unreasonably safe
   condition, or allowed an unreasonably safe condition to exist within its

           3
              The district court’s order states that the incident occurred on August 8, 2018,
   while the plaintiff’s original complaint and both parties’ briefs state that the incident
   occurred on August 6, 2018. Because our review of the record indicates that the August 6th
   date is likely correct, we use that date herein.

                                               2
Case: 22-60269      Document: 00516827637           Page: 3     Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                     No. 22-60269

   premises. She also contended that Walmart was responsible for her injuries
   under the theory of res ipsa loquitur. Walmart moved for summary judgment,
   attaching to its pleadings the store surveillance videos from the date of the
   incident. The district court granted Walmart’s motion and dismissed the
   case with prejudice. In its order, the district court held that Keen had failed
   to provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of premises
   liability against Walmart or that it was liable under the doctrine of res ipsa
   loquitur. This appeal ensued.
                           II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s grant of summary
   judgment. Sanders v. Christwood, 970 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 2020).
   “Summary judgment is proper ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine
   dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
   matter of law.’” Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)). A dispute regarding a
   material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
   return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
   Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “The party opposing summary judgment is
   required to identify specific evidence in the record and to articulate the
   precise manner in which that evidence supports his or her claim.” Ragas v.
   Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). “A panel may affirm
   summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, even if it is
   different from that relied on by the district court.” Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc.,
   701 F.3d 434, 438 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted).
                                 III. DISCUSSION
          On appeal, Keen advances two primary arguments. First, she argues
   that the district court erred in holding that she had failed to establish a prima
   facie case of premises liability. Second, she argues that the district court erred

                                           3
Case: 22-60269      Document: 00516827637          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60269

   in determining that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply in her case.
   We address each argument in turn.
          A. Premises Liability
          “Premises liability is a theory of negligence that establishes the duty
   owed to someone injured on a landowner’s premises as a result of conditions
   or activities on the land[.]” See Venture, Inc. v. Harris, 307 So. 3d 427, 432
   (Miss. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In a premises-
   liability case, “the plaintiff must prove each element of negligence: duty,
   breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages or injury.” Id.
   (citations omitted). In Mississippi, a three-step process is applied to
   determine premises liability. Id. at 433 (quoting Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So. 2d
   152, 156 (Miss. 2004)). First, the injured person’s status must be classified in
   terms of whether that person is an invitee, licensee, or a trespasser. Id.
   Second, the duty owed to the injured party is determined based on that
   classification. Id. Third, it must be determined whether the duty owed to the
   injured party was breached by the landowner or business operator. Id.
   Although the determination of which status a particular plaintiff holds can be
   a jury question, a trial judge may make the determination where the facts are
   not in dispute. Id.
          “[A]n invitee is a person who goes upon the premises of another in
   answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for their
   mutual advantage.” Id. A business owner’s duties to an invitee include
   keeping “the premises in a reasonably safe condition” and warning “the
   invitee of dangerous conditions that are not readily apparent.” Id.
   Nevertheless, an invitee is “still required to use in the interest of his own
   safety that degree of care and prudence which a person of ordinary
   intelligence would exercise under the same or similar circumstance.” Id.

                                          4
Case: 22-60269      Document: 00516827637           Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                     No. 22-60269

          Proof that her injury was caused by a “dangerous condition” is an
   essential element of an invitee’s premises liability claim. See Robinson v. Miss.
   Valley Gas Co., 760 So. 2d 41, 43 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). In other words, a
   property owner cannot be found liable for the plaintiff’s injury where no
   dangerous condition exists or where there is no evidence that the property
   owner should have been aware of such a condition. Id. (“[The plaintiff]
   admitted that he did not know if there was any substance on the floor that
   caused him to fall. No other evidence was offered on the issue . . . [The
   plaintiff] would have the court infer that because it was raining and he slipped
   and fell that [the owner] was negligent. Neither we, nor more importantly a
   jury, may engage in speculative fact-finding. A preponderance of evidence
   necessary for judgment cannot arise from the absence of evidence.”). It is
   also worth noting that a business “is not required to keep the premises
   absolutely safe, or in such a condition that no accident could possibly happen
   to a customer.” Hill v. Cent. Sunbelt Fed. Credit Union, 349 So. 3d 1181, 1185
   (Miss. Ct. App. 2022) (citations omitted). “[B]usiness owners are not
   insurers against all injuries[.]” Daniels v. Family Dollar Stores of Miss., Inc.,
   351 So. 3d 964, 969 (Miss. Ct. App. 2022).
          Here, neither party disputes the district court’s determination that
   Keen was an “invitee” on Walmart’s premises when the incident occurred
   because she entered the store to purchase school supplies. That said, the
   record supports the district court’s conclusion that Keen failed to show that
   a “dangerous condition” existed. See Robinson, 760 So. 2d at 43. As a
   preliminary matter, she has provided no evidence as to what caused the box
   to fall or what position the box was in on the shelf before it fell. According to
   Keen’s deposition testimony, she did not ask the other witnesses if they saw
   anything and did not know what the other customers in the aisle were doing
   when the incident occurred. She did not know if another customer caused the
   box to fall or whether another customer left the box in the state it was in

                                           5
Case: 22-60269      Document: 00516827637          Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60269

   before it fell. She did not know how many other customers were in the aisle
   or how long she had been in the aisle when the box fell. She did not know
   what the woman in front of her was doing before or when the box fell. Indeed,
   Keen admitted that she was simply not paying attention to the condition of
   the aisle or the patrons therein when the incident occurred. For these
   reasons, we agree with the district court that she failed to show the existence
   of a dangerous condition. Id.
          Assuming arguendo that a dangerous condition did exist, we also agree
   that Keen failed to present evidence supporting her negligence claim against
   Walmart on grounds that it breached its duty by causing the condition or that
   it had actual or constructive knowledge that the condition existed. See
   Hartford v. Beau Rivage Resorts, Inc., 179 So. 3d 89, 91–92 (Miss. Ct. App.
   2015) (explaining that even if the existence of a dangerous condition is
   proven, the plaintiff still must show: “(1) a negligent act by the defendant
   caused the dangerous condition; or (2) the defendant had actual knowledge
   of the dangerous condition but failed to warn the plaintiff; or (3) the
   dangerous condition remained long enough to provide the defendant with
   constructive knowledge”). While Keen contends that Walmart should have
   stationed more employees on the school supply aisle, she does not explain
   how the purported lack of staff caused the box to fall. The surveillance videos
   that Walmart submitted to the district court show both managers and
   employees walking near and down the school supply aisle several times just
   minutes before the incident. If anything, the video footage undermines
   Keen’s argument that stationing more employees on the school supply aisle
   could have somehow prevented the box from falling.
          Nor does Keen suggest that Walmart had actual or constructive
   knowledge that the box of notebooks on the shelf constituted an unsafe
   condition. Id. As her deposition testimony reveals, Keen had no idea when
   the dangerous condition first came to exist or how long it remained before the

                                         6
Case: 22-60269       Document: 00516827637            Page: 7   Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                      No. 22-60269

   incident. For these reasons, we agree with the district court that she failed to
   provide summary judgment evidence beyond “speculation, improbable
   inferences, or unsubstantiated assertions.” See Carnaby v. City of Houston,
   636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Conclusional allegations and
   unsubstantiated assertions may not be relied on as evidence by the
   nonmoving party.”). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err
   in concluding that Keen failed to establish her prima facie case of premises
   liability. See Venture, Inc., 307 So. 3d at 432.
          B. Res Ipsa Loquitor
          The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is essentially “a rule of evidence that
   allows negligence to be inferred in certain fact situations.” Trepagnier v.
   Alimak Hek, Inc., 784 F. App’x 195, 200 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam)
   (unpublished) (quoting Winters v. Wright, 869 So. 2d 357, 363 (Miss. 2003)
   (en banc)). “Mississippi courts have instructed that res ipsa loquitur should
   be applied ‘cautiously.’” Id. (quoting Perry Inv. Grp., LLC v. CCBCC
   Operations, LLC, 169 So. 3d 888, 897 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (citation
   omitted)). The Mississippi Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine
   “has no operation to excuse or dispense with definite proof, by the plaintiff,
   of material facts which are tangible and are capable of direct and specific
   evidence, as much within the power of plaintiff to produce as of the
   defendant.” Id. (quoting Winters, 869 So. 2d at 364). Likewise, the doctrine
   will not apply unless the plaintiff proves “three elements: 1) the
   instrumentality causing the damage must be under the exclusive control of
   the defendant; 2) the occurrence must be [of such a nature that it would not
   happen] in the ordinary course of things . . . if those in control of the
   instrumentality used proper care; and 3) the occurrence must not be due to
   any voluntary act on the part of the plaintiff.” Id. (citing Coleman v. Rice, 706
   So. 2d 696, 698 (Miss. 1997) (en banc)).

                                            7
Case: 22-60269      Document: 00516827637           Page: 8     Date Filed: 07/20/2023

                                     No. 22-60269

          While it appears from the record that Keen did not commit a voluntary
   act that caused the box to fall, she nevertheless has failed to show that
   Walmart exclusively controlled the box that fell or that it failed to use proper
   care to prevent the box from falling. Id. As the district court observed, Keen
   had no idea if other patrons caused the box to fall or were involved in the
   incident so she cannot show that Walmart maintained exclusive control over
   the box. Id. Nor can she show that Walmart failed to exercise proper care over
   the box. Id. As stated supra, she fails to show how more Walmart employees
   being stationed at the aisle could have prevented the box from falling and the
   store video surveillance footage shows numerous employees in the area just
   minutes before the incident occurred. In short, she has not provided evidence
   to support the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in her case. For
   these reasons, we agree with the district court that the doctrine does not
   apply here.
          In sum, because Keen has failed to provide sufficient evidence in
   support of her claims against Walmart, we affirm the district court’s
   summary judgment in its favor. See Sanders, 970 F.3d at 561.
                                IV. CONCLUSION
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                           8