Court Opinion

ID: 9959967
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-13 00:00:34.323073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:02.551441
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20457           Document: 59-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/12/2024

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

                                   No. 23-20457                          FILED
                                 Summary Calendar                    April 12, 2024
                                 ____________                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
Miguel Vasquez,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Home Depot USA, Incorporated,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:21-CV-3609
                  ______________________________

Before Davis, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant, Miguel Vasquez, appeals the district court’s
dismissal on summary judgment of his premises-liability and negligence
claims. We find no error and AFFIRM.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-20457            Document: 59-1           Page: 2     Date Filed: 04/12/2024

                                        No. 23-20457

                                              I.
        On July 30, 2020, Vasquez was injured when he tripped and fell in a
Home Depot store. At the time, Vasquez was in the checkout line and
decided to quickly get a drink from a nearby cooler. On his way back to the
checkout line from the cooler, Vasquez tripped on a wire shelf that another
customer had placed on the floor.
        Vasquez filed suit in state court, bringing claims for premises liability
and negligent activity. Home Depot removed the case and subsequently
moved for summary judgment.                  The district court granted summary
judgment after reviewing Vasquez’s deposition testimony and the
surveillance footage of the accident. Vasquez timely appealed. 1
                                              II.
        On appeal, Vasquez argues the district court erred by granting
summary judgment to Home Depot on his negligence and premises-liability
claims. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court. 2 Summary judgment is appropriate where “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.” 3

        _____________________
        1
          The district court granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment during
a hearing on August 17, 2023. In a minute entry, the district court stated that it would enter
an order and reasons and a final judgment separately. Vasquez appealed the grant of
summary judgment on September 15, 2023. Subsequently, on January 22, 2024, the district
court entered its order and reasons and a judgment dismissing Vasquez’s complaint with
prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2), we treat Vasquez’s notice
of appeal as filed on January 22. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (“A notice of appeal filed
after the court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or
order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.”).
        2
            McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012).
        3
            Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

                                              2
Case: 23-20457            Document: 59-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/12/2024

                                       No. 23-20457

       To prevail on his premises-liability claim under Texas law, Vasquez
must prove four elements: “(1) the property owner had actual or constructive
knowledge of the condition causing the injury; (2) the condition posed an
unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the property owner failed to take reasonable
care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) the property owner’s failure to
use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk was the proximate cause
of injuries to the invitee.” 4       At issue here is the first element—actual or
constructive knowledge. The Texas Supreme Court has identified three
ways in which a plaintiff can satisfy the knowledge requirement: “(1) the
defendant placed the substance on the floor, (2) the defendant actually knew
that the substance was on the floor, or (3) it is more likely than not that the
condition existed long enough to give the premises owner a reasonable
opportunity to discover it.” 5
       Here, Vasquez testified that another customer placed the shelving on
the floor. Therefore, the district court correctly held that Home Depot did
not cause the allegedly dangerous condition. Vasquez instead argues that
there is a genuine dispute as to whether Home Depot had actual or
constructive knowledge of the shelving. The district court disagreed, as do
we.
       As to actual knowledge, there is no evidence in the record to support
Vasquez’s conclusory assertion that a Home Depot employee “directly
observ[ed] the customer placing the wire rack on the ground.” Notably,
there is no indication in the video surveillance that an employee observed the
customer place the shelving on the floor. Furthermore, in his deposition
testimony, Vasquez acknowledged that he did not know if any Home Depot

       _____________________
       4
           Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251–52 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam).
       5
           Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812, 814 (Tex. 2002).

                                              3
Case: 23-20457            Document: 59-1         Page: 4      Date Filed: 04/12/2024

                                       No. 23-20457

employees saw the shelving on the floor, but asserted that “they should have
noticed it because that’s their job to notice things like that” and there “were
so many employees right here.” But the “fact that [Home Depot] employees
were in the area does not mean they actually observed the [shelving].” 6
Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Vasquez failed to
identify any evidence from which a jury could conclude that Home Depot
had actual knowledge of the shelving on the floor.
       We also agree with the district court that Vasquez produced
insufficient evidence to support the inference that Home Depot had
constructive knowledge of the allegedly dangerous condition. Constructive
knowledge “requires proof that an owner had a reasonable opportunity to
discover the defect.” 7 This requires courts to analyze “the combination of
proximity, conspicuity, and longevity.” 8 In other words, courts must analyze
the combination of the length of time the hazard existed, the proximity of the
premises owner’s employees to the hazard, and the conspicuousness of the
hazard.
          Vasquez argues that although the shelving was on the floor for about
twenty seconds, the video footage shows that there were five employees in
the immediate vicinity, and that the shelving was over five feet in length. He
thus concludes that “the proximity of Home Depot’s employees, and the size
of the [shelving] itself, raises a question of fact” regarding constructive
knowledge.
       Regarding proximity and longevity, there is no dispute that Home
Depot employees were nearby at the time of the accident and that the
       _____________________
       6
           Sampson v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 500 S.W.3d 380, 396 (Tex. 2016).
       7
           Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Spates, 186 S.W.3d 566, 567 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).
       8
           Id.

                                             4
 Case: 23-20457          Document: 59-1          Page: 5       Date Filed: 04/12/2024

                                       No. 23-20457

shelving was on the floor for approximately twenty seconds before Vasquez
tripped and fell. As to conspicuousness, Vasquez emphasizes that the
shelving was over five feet in length, but as the district court noted, the video
footage does not show that the shelving was visibly separate from a nearby
shopping cart.
        After considering the three factors, we agree with the district court
that the shelving, which was obscured in part by a shopping cart, and was only
on the floor for approximately twenty seconds, did not give Home Depot
employees in the vicinity a reasonable opportunity to discover the hazard. 9
Thus, Vasquez failed to create a genuine factual dispute that Home Depot
had constructive knowledge that the shelving was on the floor.
        In sum, Vasquez has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact
that Home Depot had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged
dangerous condition, and thus the district court properly granted summary
judgment on his premises-liability claim.
        Finally, Vasquez asserts that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on his alternative claim for negligent activity. Negligent-
activity claims are distinct from premises-liability claims. 10 Underpinning
this distinction “is the principle that negligent activity encompasses a

        _____________________
        9
           See, e.g., id. at 567–68 (refusing to find an issue of fact regarding constructive
knowledge when the alleged hazard was three to five feet “behind an employee’s back for
30 to 45 seconds”); Townson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 760 F. App’x 345, 347 (5th Cir. 2019)
(per curiam) (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s summary judgment because the
dangerous condition—a folded mat—existed for less than ninety seconds before the
plaintiff fell, which “was insufficient time for Wal-Mart to have a reasonable opportunity
to discover it”).
        10
          See United Scaffolding, Inc. v. Levine, 537 S.W.3d 463, 471 (Tex. 2017) (“Because
negligence and premises liability claims are based on independent theories of recovery, we
have held that they are not interchangeable.”).

                                             5
Case: 23-20457             Document: 59-1           Page: 6        Date Filed: 04/12/2024

                                        No. 23-20457

malfeasance theory based on affirmative, contemporaneous conduct by the
owner that caused the injury, while premises liability encompasses a
nonfeasance theory based on the owner’s failure to take measures to make
the property safe.” 11           The Texas Supreme Court has “repeatedly
characterized . . . slip-and-fall claims as premises defect cases” because the
alleged injuries in such cases are “a result of a physical condition or defect
left on the premises.” 12
       As the district court explained, Vasquez’s negligence-activity claim
fails as a matter of law because his injury did not result from Home Depot’s
contemporaneous conduct, but instead from a temporary physical condition
on the property. Thus, this is clearly a premises-liability case, and the district
court correctly dismissed Vasquez’s negligent-activity claim.
                                             III.
       For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

       _____________________
       11
            Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
       12
            Id. at 472.

                                               6