Court Opinion

ID: 9887631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 18:00:50.689823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:21.448649
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10545    Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 10/06/2023   Page: 1 of 14

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10545
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        ELENA ZHANADOVA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                       D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-60668-RS
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10545      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 10/06/2023      Page: 2 of 14

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10545

        Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Elena Zhanadova appeals the district court’s order granting
        summary judgment in favor of defendants Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
        and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, (“Walmart”) in her “slip and fall”
        negligence suit under Florida law. Zhanadova argues that the
        district court erred in granting summary judgment because there
        were disputed issues of material fact related to Walmart’s actual
        notice of the spill and whether it had sufficient time to remedy the
        dangerous condition. After review, we affirm.
                                  I.     Background
               The events giving rise to this negligence action occurred
        over less than a three-minute period on the evening of July 8, 2018,
        at a Walmart in south Florida. That evening, at approximately
        6:46:53 p.m. another Walmart customer spilled juices from a
        rotisserie chicken container onto the floor at one of the self-
        checkout registers.     That customer finished checking out
        approximately two minutes later at 6:48:56 p.m. A few seconds
        later at 6:49:07 p.m., Zhanadova approached the same self-
        checkout register and began checking out. Within approximately
        20 seconds of being at the register, Zhanadova slipped and fell on
        the chicken drippings. At the time that she fell, it is undisputed that
        a Walmart employee was approaching her carrying paper towels,
        presumably to clean up the spill.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 10/06/2023    Page: 3 of 14

        23-10545              Opinion of the Court                       3

               Thereafter, Zhanadova brought a multi-count negligence
        action against Walmart and unnamed store managers of this
        particular Walmart in Florida state court, seeking damages for
        injuries that she suffered from the slip, including injuries to her
        back and neck. In her complaint, she alleged that Walmart had a
        duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe
        condition for its patrons. She maintained that Walmart knew or
        should have known about the dangerous condition and should
        have taken the necessary steps to remedy the dangerous condition
        or warn patrons of its existence. And as a direct and proximate
        cause of Walmart’s negligence, she fell and suffered injuries.
        Walmart removed the action to federal court based on diversity
        jurisdiction.
               Zhanadova explained during her deposition that on the day
        in question she was at the self-checkout register in Walmart with a
        friend, when she “heard some kind of yelling or some noise” similar
        to shouting or yelling. Zhanadova, who does not speak English,
        did not understand what was being said. Zhanadova looked up and
        saw a Walmart employee “running toward [her]” from “far away
        where the other [non-self-checkout] cash registers” were, and the
        employee “was shouting something,” “waving,” and “holding
        something white in her hand.” Zhanadova explained that she
        could tell by the way the employee was approaching her and
        waving at her that she was “trying to warn [Zhanadova] about
        some kind of danger.” Zhanadova explained that she looked
        around and realized that there were no other customers near her
        and that they seemed to be avoiding the register area where
USCA11 Case: 23-10545         Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 10/06/2023         Page: 4 of 14

        4                          Opinion of the Court                       23-10545

        Zhanadova was standing. Because people had moved away from
        the area and a Walmart employee was running toward her yelling
        something, Zhanadova became very scared. She stated that
        another woman approached her from behind and was speaking to
        her, but Zhanadova did not understand what the woman was
        saying due to the language barrier. She stated that the woman
        from behind took her hand and gently started pulling her
        backwards, while pointing to the floor with her other hand.1
        Zhanadova did not know whether or not the woman behind her
        that pulled her backward was a Walmart employee, and she could
        not say what the woman was wearing. Zhanadova stepped
        backward and slipped and fell. Zhanadova did not see anything on
        the floor before she slipped, and she maintained that “when [she] .
        . . approached th[e] self-help register, everything there in that area
        was dry and clean . . . .” After she fell, Zhanadova realized there
        was “like an oily liquid” puddle on the floor. Zhanadova stated that
        no Walmart employee told her not to go near the area where she
        fell prior to the fall.

        1 Although Zhanadova stated that a woman came behind her and took her

        hand and pulled her backward gently, the video footage of the incident refutes
        this statement. No one appears behind Zhanadova in the video or touches
        her. Although at the summary judgment stage we view the evidence in the
        light most favorable to the non-moving party, when, as here, the non-moving
        party’s version of events is blatantly contradicted by video evidence in the
        record, we do not accept the non-moving party’s version of events to the
        extent of the contradiction. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Thus,
        we do not accept Zhanadova’s statement that someone came up behind her
        at the register and pulled her backward gently prior to her fall.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 10/06/2023      Page: 5 of 14

        23-10545                Opinion of the Court                           5

                Walmart moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was
        entitled to summary judgment because Zhanadova could not show
        that Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge of the
        dangerous condition, which existed for only 2 minutes and 32
        seconds prior to Zhanadova’s fall. Zhanadova opposed Walmart’s
        motion for summary judgment, asserting that the CCTV footage
        of her fall established that Walmart had actual knowledge of the
        spill prior to her fall. 2 Specifically, she maintained that the video
        established that three Walmart employees were aware of the spill
        prior to her fall. First, she asserted that the spill occurred at 6:46:54
        p.m. when another customer spilled liquid from a container of
        chicken. Second she maintained that at 6:47:23 p.m. another
        person outside of the view of the camera walked towards the spill.
        Even though only the unknown individual’s shoes are visible in the
        video, Zhanadova asserted that this person must have been a
        Walmart employee and that the employee must have seen the spill
        because the individual appeared to be carrying “a yellow rag.” But,
        after walking towards the spill, the person retreats and disappears
        from the camera’s view without taking any steps to clean the spill
        or block off the area.
               Next, she maintained that a second Walmart employee saw
        the spill at 6:48:04 p.m., pointing to the fact that in the upper left
        hand portion of the video “from the opposite side of the self-check-

        2 Although Zhanadova briefly addressed constructive notice in her motion,

        she maintained throughout the motion that this case was about Walmart’s
        actual knowledge.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 10/06/2023     Page: 6 of 14

        6                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10545

        out register” an arm appears to be pointing at something. She
        contended that this arm must belong to a Walmart employee
        because after Zhanadova’s fall, this same arm appears at 6:51:49
        p.m. handing off a roll of paper towels to a fellow employee to
        assist with cleanup.
               And finally, she asserted that a third employee had actual
        knowledge of the spill because as seen in the video the employee
        approached Zhanadova seconds before the fall carrying a few paper
        towels in her hand and waving toward Zhanadova. Thus, she
        maintained that Walmart was liable for her injuries because it had
        actual notice of the spill prior to her fall and should have taken steps
        to correct it.
               The district court granted Walmart’s motion for summary
        judgment. The district court explained that only 2 minutes and 32
        seconds elapsed between the time of the spill and Zhanadova’s fall,
        and that Zhanadova relied solely on the video footage as proof that
        three employees knew of the dangerous condition before she fell.
        With regard to Zhanadova’s allegation that an employee observed
        the spill at 6:47:23 p.m. prior to the fall, the district court concluded
        that the video did not show that the individual was an employee as
        the identity of the individual was not ascertainable from the shoes
        and possible yellow rag that appeared in the corner of the video
        frame. The court noted that Zhanadova, as the non-moving party,
        had not presented any other evidence to support her claim that the
        individual in question was in fact a Walmart employee. Moreover,
        even if the individual was a Walmart employee, it was unknown
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 10/06/2023      Page: 7 of 14

        23-10545                Opinion of the Court                          7

        from the video where the employee was looking such that the
        person saw the spill. Thus, this first individual did not establish that
        Walmart had actual knowledge of the spill.
               Next, the district court addressed the alleged second
        employee who purportedly observed the spill based on the arm
        that appears to be pointing at something in the upper left corner of
        the video frame prior to the fall. The court concluded that it could
        not be ascertained from the video to whom the arm belonged or
        that the arm was pointing to the spill as opposed to something else
        in the store. Thus, Zhanadova failed to establish that Walmart had
        actual knowledge of the spill via this second person.
              As to the third person—the employee seen approaching
        Zhanadova with paper towels in hand mere seconds before the
        fall—the district court concluded that this employee demonstrated
        that Walmart had actual notice of the condition at that point in
        time. Nevertheless, Walmart was not liable under Florida law
        because Walmart did not have a sufficient opportunity following
        notice of the condition to correct it. In other words, because
        Zhanadova did not point to any other evidence showing actual
        notice of the spill prior to when the Walmart employee
        approached her at 6:49:22 p.m., mere seconds before the fall,
        Walmart did not have sufficient time to correct or warn of the
        condition. Accordingly, the district court granted Walmart’s
        summary judgment motion, and Zhanadova timely appealed.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 10/06/2023      Page: 8 of 14

        8                        Opinion of the Court                    23-10545

                                     II.    Discussion
              Zhanadova argues that the district court erred in granting
        summary judgment in favor of Walmart because the video footage
        created a genuine issue of fact as to whether Walmart was on actual
        notice of the spill, and the district court improperly weighed the
        evidence at the summary judgment stage.
                “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
        novo, view[ing] the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
        moving party.” Gogel v. Kia Motors Mfg. of Ga., Inc., 967 F.3d 1121,
        1134 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (quotation omitted). “Although all
        justifiable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the nonmoving
        party, inferences based upon speculation are not reasonable.
        Evidence that is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative
        of a disputed fact cannot satisfy a party’s burden, and a mere
        scintilla of evidence is likewise insufficient.” Kernel Records Oy v.
        Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012) (quotations and internal
        citations omitted); see also 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.”); Cordoba v.
        Dillard’s Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Speculation
        does not create a genuine issue of fact; instead, it creates a false issue,
        the demolition of which is a primary goal of summary judgment.”
        (emphasis in original) (quotation omitted)). “[A]n inference 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.” Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321,
        1324 (11th Cir. 1982) (quotation omitted); see also Hinson v. Bias, 927
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 10/06/2023      Page: 9 of 14

        23-10545                Opinion of the Court                            9

        F.3d 1103, 1115 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n inference based on
        speculation and conjecture is not reasonable.” (quotation
        omitted)).
                Summary judgment is proper if the evidence shows “that
        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);
        see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
        574, 587 (1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead
        a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no
        genuine issue for trial.” (quotation omitted)).
               When, as here, federal jurisdiction over the negligence case
        is founded on diversity, state law governs the substantive issues,
        which in this case is Florida law. See ML Healthcare Servs., LLC v.
        Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 881 F.3d 1293, 1299 (11th Cir. 2018). “[T]he
        highest court of the state is the final arbiter of what is state law.
        When it has spoken, its pronouncement is to be accepted by federal
        courts as defining state law unless it has later given clear and
        persuasive indication that its pronouncement will be modified,
        limited or restricted.” West v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236
        (1940). “Where the Supreme Court of Florida has not addressed a
        particular issue, federal courts are then bound by the decisions of
        the Florida district courts of appeal that address the disputed issue,
        unless there is an indication that the supreme court would not
        adhere to the district court’s decision.” Sutton v. Wal-Mart Stores
        East, LP, 64 F.4th 1166, 1168 (11th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 23-10545      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 10/06/2023     Page: 10 of 14

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  23-10545

                To prove a negligence claim, Florida law requires plaintiffs
        to show “(1) a duty by defendant to conform to a certain standard
        of conduct; (2) a breach by defendant of that duty; (3) a causal
        connection between the breach and injury to plaintiff; and (4) loss
        or damage to plaintiff.” Encarnacion v. Lifemark Hosps. of Fla., 211
        So. 3d 275, 277–78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (quotation omitted). It is
        undisputed that Zhanadova was a business invitee in Wal-Mart's
        store, so it owed her “a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain
        [its] premises in a safe condition.” Id. Nevertheless, Wal-Mart “is
        not an insurer of the safety” of its customers, and it is not “strictly
        liable . . . for injuries resulting to invitees from dangerous
        conditions on [its] premises[.]” Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Marcotte,
        553 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
               Rather, where a business invitee slips and falls on a
        “transitory foreign substance,” proof of the breach element of the
        plaintiff’s negligence claim is “statutorily constrained” by Florida
        statutory law. See Encarnacion, 211 So. 3d at 278. Specifically,
        § 768.0755 of the Florida Statutes requires the plaintiff to “prove
        that the business establishment had actual or constructive
        knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken
        action to remedy it.” Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1). Actual knowledge of
        a dangerous condition exists when a business establishment’s
        employees or agents knew of the dangerous condition. Barbour v.
        Brinker Fla., Inc., 801 So. 2d 953, 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
              Zhanadova maintains that there was a genuine issue of fact
        about when Walmart was on actual notice of the spill based on the
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 10/06/2023        Page: 11 of 14

        23-10545                 Opinion of the Court                             11

        alleged first employee (identified in the video only by shoes and a
        partial view of what appears to be a yellow rag) and the alleged
        second employee (identified in the video only by an arm that is
        pointing toward something)—both of whom allegedly saw the spill
        between 1 and 2 minutes prior to Zhanadova’s fall. Relatedly, she
        argues that the district court improperly weighed the evidence
        when determining whether her inferences from the video were
        reasonable. She maintains that the video does not directly
        contradict her version of events, and, therefore, her contentions
        regarding the first and second employee in the video were
        reasonable inferences.3
               Zhanadova’s arguments are unpersuasive. Her contention
        that these individuals in the video are Walmart employees is not a
        reasonable inference because it is based solely on speculation and
        conjecture. Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1115 (“[A]n inference based on
        speculation and conjecture is not reasonable.” (quotation
        omitted)); Daniels, 692 F.2d at 1324 (“[A]n inference 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.” (quotation omitted)). She presented no other
        evidence tending to show that the individual whose shoes are seen
        in the video with what looks to be a yellow rag is a store employee.
        Likewise, she presented no other evidence tending to show that the

        3 Zhanadova also faults the district court for not considering her deposition

        testimony. Zhanadova’s contention is belied by the record, as the district
        court references her deposition testimony in the summary judgment order.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545       Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 10/06/2023        Page: 12 of 14

        12                       Opinion of the Court                     23-10545

        individual whose arm appears in the video pointing toward
        something is an employee. 4 At the summary judgment stage, “[i]t
        is not enough for the nonmoving party to merely assert[] that the
        jury might, and legally could, disbelieve the moving party’s
        evidence. Instead, the nonmoving party must present affirmative[,
        concrete] evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to rule for
        [her].” Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1115–16 (quotation omitted).
        Zhanadova failed to come forward with such affirmative, concrete
        evidence. See also Kernel Records Oy, 694 F.3d at 1301 (explaining
        that “a mere scintilla of evidence is likewise insufficient” to create
        a genuine issue of material fact).
               Furthermore, even assuming that Zhanadova is correct that
        these individuals were Walmart employees, there is no evidence in
        the video or otherwise in the record tending to demonstrate which
        direction these individuals were looking. Therefore, even
        assuming they were employees, it is not a reasonable inference that
        they observed the spill and could have (or should have) taken
        action to correct the spill or to warn her of its presence. Hinson,
        927 F.3d at 1115; Daniels, 692 F.2d at 1324.

        4 Zhanadova contends that the individual whose arm is pointing toward

        something in the video must be an employee because “[t]he person to whom
        the hand belongs” is subsequently seen providing a roll of paper towels to
        another employee a few minutes after Zhanadova’s fall. But even assuming,
        arguendo that the two arms (one left arm and one right arm) seen in the video
        belong to an employee of Walmart, it is at best a guess and mere speculation
        that the two arms seen in the camera approximately three and a half minutes
        apart belong to the same employee.
USCA11 Case: 23-10545         Document: 29-1          Date Filed: 10/06/2023          Page: 13 of 14

        23-10545                    Opinion of the Court                                 13

               Rather, viewing all the evidence and reasonable inferences
        in the light most favorable to Zhanadova, as the district court
        found, the evidence establishes that Walmart was on actual notice
        of the spill at 6:49:20 p.m. when the Walmart employee enters the
        video frame carrying paper towels, which is approximately only
        three seconds before Zhanadova’s fall.5 As the district court found,
        under Florida law, this short amount of time is insufficient for
        Walmart to remedy the dangerous condition or otherwise warn its
        patrons of its existence, which means that Walmart cannot be held
        liable for any negligence.6 See, e.g., Dominguez v. Publix Super

        5 Zhanadova argues that the presence of paper towels in this employee’s hands

        establishes that the employee already knew of the issue, and we agree that the
        conclusion that the employee “already knew” of the spill necessarily follows
        from the fact that the employee was carrying a few paper towels in her hand.
        The problem for Zhanadova is that there is nothing in the record that tends to
        show when that employee first became aware of the spill, and when the
        employee was on notice of the dangerous condition is key to the negligence
        inquiry. In other words, based on the record, we are left to speculate as to
        when this employee was on notice of the spill, which is insufficient to survive
        summary judgment. Glasscox, 903 F.3d at 1213 (“Conclusory allegations and
        speculation are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”); see also
        Cordoba, 419 F.3d at 1181 (“Speculation does not create a genuine issue of fact;
        instead, it creates a false issue, the demolition of which is a primary goal of
        summary judgment.” (quotation omitted)).
        6 Zhanadova argues that the amount of time that a spill exists prior to a

        customer’s fall is not dispositive and does not warrant granting summary
        judgment, citing our unpublished decision in Perez-Brito v. Williams-Sonoma
        Stores, Inc., 735 F. App’x 668 (11th Cir. 2018). Zhanadova’s argument is
        unpersuasive. As an initial matter, Perez-Brito is an unpublished, non-binding
        case. Patterson v. Ga. Pacific, LLC, 38 F.4th 1336, 1346 (11th Cir. 2022) (“Our
        unpublished opinions are not precedential”; “they do not bind us or district
USCA11 Case: 23-10545        Document: 29-1         Date Filed: 10/06/2023         Page: 14 of 14

        14                         Opinion of the Court                       23-10545

        Markets, Inc., 187 So. 3d 892, 893–94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (holding
        that grocery store was not liable for negligence where thirteen
        seconds passed between the time the store employee heard the
        bottle of detergent fall from the shelf and when the customer
        slipped); Gaidymowicz v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 371 So. 2d 212, 214
        (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (holding that the grocery store was not liable
        because it did not have a sufficient opportunity to correct the
        dangerous condition where it had only one minute of actual notice
        of the spill). Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting
        summary judgment in favor of Walmart.
                AFFIRMED.

        courts to any degree.”). Regardless, in Perez-Brito, we acknowledged that the
        length of time between actual notice and a fall is a relevant—although not
        necessarily conclusive—consideration. Id. at 670. And although we held in
        that case that the defendant had a sufficient opportunity to correct the
        dangerous condition even though only a minute and a half passed between
        the store’s actual notice and the customer’s fall, our holding was limited to the
        specific factual circumstances of that case. The facts of Zhanadova’s case are
        distinguishable, and Perez-Brito does not persuade us that summary judgment
        was inappropriate here.