Court Opinion

ID: 9899156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:35.199856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.514464
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20081       Document: 00516969575             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

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

                                    ____________                                 FILED
                                                                         November 15, 2023
                                     No. 23-20081                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                 Clerk

   Elizabeth Watson, also known as Elizabeth Jackson,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Fiesta Mart, L.L.C.,

                                              Defendant—Appellee.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:21-CV-2312
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Plaintiff Elizabeth Watson slipped on an oily substance and fell while
   shopping at a grocery store owned and operated by Defendant Fiesta Mart,
   L.L.C. Watson suffered injuries from her fall and sued Fiesta Mart. Fiesta
   Mart moved for summary judgment, claiming it could not be held liable be-
   cause it placed a conspicuous warning sign in the area of the oily substance.

           _____________________
           *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-20081          Document: 00516969575               Page: 2        Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                            No. 23-20081

   The district court agreed with Fiesta Mart and granted it summary judgment.
   Watson appeals from that judgment. We AFFIRM.
                                       I. Background
           On June 7, 2019, Elizabeth Watson visited a Fiesta Mart grocery store
   in Houston, Texas, to shop for merchandise. On that date, an unknown
   customer dropped a bottle of vegetable oil, causing vegetable oil to spill onto
   an area of the floor in one of the store’s aisles.
           Approximately seventeen minutes after the spill occurred, Ronald
   Baker, a Fiesta Mart employee, placed a yellow hazard cone (“hazard
   cone”)1 in the area of the spill. 2 For the next fifteen minutes, customers
   walked past the hazard cone without slipping on the vegetable oil.
           Then, Watson entered the aisle. There were four customers in the
   aisle when Watson entered; two were stopped at the end of the aisle at which
   Watson entered and two others were walking towards Watson as she entered.
   Shortly after passing the two customers walking towards her, Watson slipped
   on the vegetable oil and fell. Watson admits, and video evidence confirms,
   that after passing the two oncoming customers, she had an unobstructed view
   of the hazard cone before slipping and falling. But according to Watson, she

           _____________________
           1
               Watson describes the hazard cone as a “wet floor sign.”
           2
             Baker also called for an employee to clean the vegetable oil, as did the store
   manager. Watson states, and video evidence confirms, that an employee with cleaning
   supplies walked past, but not into, the aisle in which the spilled oil was located. It is unclear
   whether that employee was aware of the spilled oil. Other than the calls for cleanup made
   by Baker and the store manager, Watson points to no other evidence showing or even
   suggesting the employee was aware of the spilled oil.

                                                  2
Case: 23-20081        Document: 00516969575             Page: 3       Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                         No. 23-20081

   did not see the hazard cone because she was scanning the shelves for
   vegetable oil to purchase.
           Watson alleges she sustained a broken wrist and injuries to her left
   knee, left ankle, hip, lower back, and left leg as a result of slipping and falling
   at Fiesta Mart. Watson sued Fiesta Mart for negligence in Texas state court,
   claiming that Fiesta Mart was liable to her for these injuries. Watson later
   clarified she sought to recover from Fiesta Mart under a theory of premises
   liability.
           Fiesta Mart removed the case to federal court3 and moved for
   summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for Fiesta
   Mart, having concluded there was “no genuine dispute of material fact as to
   whether [Fiesta Mart] discharged its duty and adequately warned [Watson]
   of the spill.” Watson appeals from this judgment.
                                     II. Discussion
           “This court ‘review[s] summary judgment de novo, applying the
   same legal standards as the district court.’” Ryder v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,
   945 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Prospect Cap. Corp. v. Mut. of
   Omaha Bank, 819 F.3d 754, 756–57 (5th Cir. 2016)) (alteration in original).
   Under those legal standards, granting summary judgment is proper only if
   “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
   to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
           As indicated above, Watson claims that Fiesta Mart is liable to her for
   her injuries under a theory of premises liability. To prevail on a premises
   liability claim under Texas law, an invitee must prove “that (1) a condition of

           _____________________
           3
              In removing the case to federal court, Fiesta Mart invoked the district court’s
   diversity jurisdiction.

                                               3
Case: 23-20081         Document: 00516969575       Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 23-20081

   the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee; (2) the
   owner knew or reasonably should have known of the condition; (3) the owner
   failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the invitee from danger; and (4) the
   owner’s failure was a proximate cause of injury to the invitee.” Fort Brown
   Villas III Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Gillenwater, 285 S.W.3d 879, 883 (Tex. 2009).
   The third element is the only element at issue in this appeal. Under that
   element, a landowner has a duty to his invitees to “make [his premises] safe
   or warn against any concealed, unreasonably dangerous conditions of which
   the landowner is, or reasonably should be, aware but the invitee is not.”
   Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193, 203 (Tex. 2015) (emphasis
   added). Critically, “the landowner need not do both”—i.e., eliminate the
   danger and warn of it—and “can satisfy its duty by providing an adequate
   warning even if the unreasonably dangerous condition remains.”               Id.
   (emphasis added).
          There is no dispute that a Fiesta Mart employee placed the hazard
   cone in the vicinity of the spilled oil before Watson slipped on it. Therefore,
   the central issue on appeal is whether there is any genuine dispute the hazard
   cone adequately warned Watson of the vegetable oil on the floor before she
   slipped and fell.
          A landowner’s duty to warn of danger on his premises is “limited to a
   duty to exercise ordinary, reasonable care.” Id.; see also TXI Operations, L.P.
   v. Perry, 278 S.W.3d 763, 764–65 (Tex. 2009) (“Premises owners and
   occupiers owe a duty to . . .‘take whatever action is reasonably prudent under
   the circumstances to reduce or to eliminate the unreasonable risk from that
   condition.’” (quoting Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295
   (Tex. 1983))). “Thus, a defendant has ‘no duty’ to take safety measures
   beyond those that an ordinary, reasonable landowner would take.” Austin,
   465 S.W.3d at 204.

                                          4
Case: 23-20081      Document: 00516969575          Page: 5   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 23-20081

          To be sure, “[w]hat a reasonable landowner would do is often a jury
   question.” Id. But not always. Id. Indeed, the Texas Supreme Court “has
   recognized that, in most circumstances, a landowner who provides an
   adequate warning acts reasonably as a matter of law.” Id. “[A]bsent special
   circumstances . . . , a property owner’s warning to an invitee of an
   unreasonably dangerous condition is adequate if, given the totality of the
   surrounding circumstances, the warning identifies and communicates the
   existence of the condition in a manner that a reasonable person would
   perceive and understand.” Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 253 (Tex.
   2014). For a warning to be adequate under Texas law, perfection is not
   required. See, e.g., Cruz v. W. H. Braum, Inc., No. 21-40477, 2022 WL
   325469, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 3, 2022) (per curiam); Henkel, 441 S.W.3d at
   252–53; Golden Corral Corp. v. Trigg, 443 S.W.3d 515, 518–20 (Tex. App.—
   Beaumont 2014, no pet.); cf. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Saenz ex rel. Saenz,
   873 S.W.2d 353, 360 (Tex. 1993) (“Plaintiffs’ argument that the warning
   could have been more prominent does not prove that it was not prominent
   enough. Every warning can always be made bigger, brighter and more
   obvious.”). When a warning is adequate as a matter of law in a premises
   liability case, entering judgment for the defendant is appropriate. See, e.g.,
   Cruz, 2022 WL 325469, at *3; Henkel, 441 S.W.3d at 252–53 (“If the
   evidence conclusively establishes that the property owner adequately warned
   the injured party of the condition, then the property owner was not negligent
   as a matter of law.”).
          Watson does not point to any evidence showing that a particular
   characteristic of the hazard cone was deficient and that the deficiency
   resulted in the hazard cone failing to communicate a dangerous condition in
   a manner that a reasonable person would perceive and understand. For
   example, she does not contend the message conveyed on the hazard cone
   failed to adequately warn her of the vegetable oil on the floor. See TXI

                                         5
Case: 23-20081      Document: 00516969575           Page: 6    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                     No. 23-20081

   Operations, L.P., 278 S.W.3d at 765 (holding a warning sign was not adequate
   as a matter of law because it “it neither informed the driver of road hazards
   generally, nor did it identify the particular hazard that [the defendant] says
   the sign was meant to warn against” (citing State v. McBride, 601 S.W.2d 552,
   554, 556–57 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.))). Instead, she
   simply argues the sign was deficient because she was “looking at the shelf for
   the merchandise” and did not see the sign. But merely failing to see a
   conspicuous warning sign before sustaining injury is insufficient to defeat a
   motion for summary judgment on a premises liability claim. See Cruz,
   2022 WL 325469, at *3; see also Trigg, 443 S.W.3d at 520 (reversing jury’s
   verdict for the plaintiff and rendering judgment for the defendant where “the
   evidence conclusively established that [the defendant] warned of the wet
   floor and that the warning was adequate”).
          Our decision in Cruz is instructive. There, the plaintiff slipped and
   fell at the defendant’s dining establishment. Cruz, 2022 WL 325469, at *1.
   Before slipping and falling, the plaintiff did not see the “wet floor” sign, even
   though “nothing blocked her view of it” and she “walked right past” it. Id.
   at *1, *3. Other than not seeing the sign, the plaintiff “present[ed] no
   additional evidence that the warning was inadequate.” Id. at *3. As such, we
   held that the warning sign was “adequate as a matter of law” and that
   granting the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiff’s premises
   liability claim was proper. Id.
          The circumstances here are nearly identical to those in Cruz. To be
   sure, a few passing customers temporarily obstructed Watson’s view of the
   hazard cone. But Watson admits in her opening brief that “[a]fter passing
   the other customers, there was nothing between [her] and the yellow hazard
   cone,” and she does not dispute she “had an unobstructed view of the yellow
   hazard cone as she continued to walk directly towards it for at least six steps

                                          6
Case: 23-20081     Document: 00516969575          Page: 7   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                   No. 23-20081

   before stepping on the spill, slipping, and falling.” (Emphasis added.) Video
   evidence confirms Watson’s admission.
         Because Watson points to no relevant evidence showing the hazard
   cone was inadequate, there is no genuine dispute over its adequacy. Thus,
   the hazard cone provided an adequate warning as a matter of law, and Fiesta
   Mart is entitled to summary judgment on Watson’s premises liability claim.
   AFFIRMED.

                                         7