Court Opinion

ID: 9378397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:00:48.344699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.150700
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11646    Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 03/10/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11646
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       CHERYL DRUKER,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       WALMART, INC.,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-61022-RS
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11646          Document: 23-1          Date Filed: 03/10/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                           Opinion of the Court                    22-11646

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Cheryl Druker appeals the district court’s grant of summary
       judgment in favor of Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”). Druker asserted
       a claim against Walmart for vicarious liability for injuries Druker
       sustained while shopping in a Walmart store. No reversible error
       has been shown; we affirm.
              The complained-of incident occurred at a Walmart grocery
       store in Broward County, Florida. Briefly stated, Drucker alleges
       that, while Druker was shopping, an unidentified person pushing a
       stock cart struck Druker from behind. After hitting Druker, the
       person faced Druker, apologized, and asked if Druker was alright.
       The person then continued quickly down the aisle with the stock
       cart. Druker contends she suffered injuries as a result of the inci-
       dent.
              Druker filed this civil action against Walmart in Florida state
       court, asserting one count of negligence. 1 After the case was re-
       moved to federal court, the district court granted Walmart’s mo-
       tion for summary judgment. The district court determined Druker
       presented nothing demonstrating that the person who allegedly
       struck her was an employee of Walmart.

       1 In filings before the district court, Druker clarified that she was asserting
       only a claim based on vicarious liability, not direct liability.
USCA11 Case: 22-11646       Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 03/10/2023      Page: 3 of 6

       22-11646                Opinion of the Court                           3

              We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
       de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable factual infer-
       ences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Skop
       v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary
       judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no gen-
       uine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
       judgment as a matter of law.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
              We are bound by the substantive law of Florida in deciding
       this diversity case. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78
       (1938). Under Florida law, “[a]n employer may be vicariously lia-
       ble to third parties under the principle of respondeat superior for
       damages and injuries caused by its employee’s negligent acts which
       are committed within the scope and course of his employment.”
       See Bennett v. Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., 570 So. 2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fla.
       Dist. Ct. App. 1990). Vicarious liability is a form of indirect liability
       whereby an employer’s liability is “based solely on the legal impu-
       tation of responsibility for another party’s tortious acts.” See Ar-
       miger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc., 48 So. 3d 864, 874-75 (Fla.
       Dist. Ct. App. 2010). Generally speaking, a principal may be held
       vicariously liable only for the negligence of its agent. See Del Pilar
       v. DHL Global Customer Sols., 993 So. 2d 142, 145-46 (Fla. Dist.
       Ct. App. 2008) (“[A] principal is not vicariously liable for the negli-
       gence of its independent contractor, but the principal is liable for
       the negligence of its agent.”).
              On appeal, Druker argues chiefly that the district court failed
       to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most
USCA11 Case: 22-11646         Document: 23-1    Date Filed: 03/10/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                         Opinion of the Court                 22-11646

       favorable to her. Druker contends that the district court weighed
       impermissibly the evidence instead of accepting as true Druker’s
       assertion that the person who struck her was a Walmart employee.
       We disagree.
              Shortly after being hit with the cart, Druker reported the in-
       cident to the store’s manager, Jack Hudson. Druker, however, was
       unable to tell Hudson where in the store the incident occurred.
       Druker was also unable to describe the person who had been push-
       ing the cart other than that the person was male. According to
       Hudson, the store had only one male employee working in the
       store that day. When Hudson (on the day of the incident) walked
       Druker past the store’s only scheduled male employee, Druker did
       not recognize the employee as the person who had purportedly hit
       her.
              During Druker’s deposition, Druker described the person
       who hit her as male, young, of average height, and as wearing
       sneakers. Druker was unable to describe the person’s face, relative
       size, hair length, or whether the person appeared to be black,
       white, Asian, or Hispanic. Except for his sneakers, Druker was also
       unable to describe the person’s clothing. When asked how Druker
       knew the person was a Walmart employee, Druker said he might
       have been wearing a vest, but said she was unsure. 2 Druker then
       said, “I would assume he was working in WalMart. That would be

       2 When the incident occurred, all Walmart employees were required to wear
       a bright green vest.
USCA11 Case: 22-11646        Document: 23-1       Date Filed: 03/10/2023        Page: 5 of 6

       22-11646                  Opinion of the Court                             5

       a normal assumption. I don’t -- who would be stocking a cart in
       Walmart?”
             Viewed in the light most favorable to Druker, the record
       contains insufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference
       that the person who allegedly hit Druker was employed by
       Walmart. 3 Although Druker has said repeatedly that the person
       was a Walmart employee, she has articulated too few facts -- either
       on the day of the incident or during this litigation -- to support her
       assumption. Given the lack of record evidence indicating that the
       person was employed by Walmart (and not an independent con-
       tractor, vendor, or customer) the district court determined
       properly that Druker’s assertions about the person’s employment
       status constituted mere speculation insufficient to avoid summary
       judgment. See Glasscox v. City of Argo, 903 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th
       Cir. 2018) (“Conclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient
       to create a genuine issue of material fact.”); Daniels v. Twin Oaks
       Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir.1982) (“[A]n infer-
       ence is not reasonable if it is ‘only a guess or a possibility,’ for such
       an inference is not based on the evidence but is pure conjecture and
       speculation.”).
             Druker has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact
       about whether the person who allegedly struck her with the cart

       3 The record contains no store surveillance footage. Nor were there witnesses
       to the incident.
USCA11 Case: 22-11646   Document: 23-1   Date Filed: 03/10/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                   Opinion of the Court             22-11646

       was an employee of Walmart. Walmart was thus entitled to sum-
       mary judgment on Druker’s claim for vicarious liability.
             AFFIRMED.