Court Opinion

ID: 9383564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 18:00:48.291728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.238177
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50785         Document: 00516694927             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50785
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                                March 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Stephanie Britt,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Walgreen Company,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:19-CV-781
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          This is a fairly ordinary retail slip-and-fall case based on diversity juris-
   diction. The district judge conducted a thorough bench trial that included
   several live witnesses and numerous witnesses by video. The case turns on
   whether Walgreen’s had constructive knowledge that there was water on the
   floor that caused plaintiff’s fall.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50785          Document: 00516694927              Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                           No. 22-50785

          The district court issued a thorough seven-page Findings of Fact and
   Conclusions of Law, carefully concluding that “[w]hile it is a somewhat close
   call, the facts of this case make it challenging to infer that Walgreen’s had
   constructive notice.” The court’s findings are protected under the clearly-
   erroneous standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6).
          The plaintiff’s main issue on appeal is this: “Did the District Court
   Judge fail to meet the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) by not specifically
   finding the facts following a bench trial?” The findings are adequate for this
   comparatively simple case. Rule 52 does not require “punctilious detail” 1
   but must include “sufficient detail to enable the appellate court to consider
   the findings under the applicable reviewing standard.” 2
          Walgreen’s points out that the district judge found at least the fol-
   lowing specific facts: (1) the purpose of plaintiff’s visit; (2) the approximate
   time of her fall; (3) that a customer had bought ice twenty-six minutes before
   the fall; and (4) testimony from employees that ice falls onto the floor from
   time to time. The court also identified testimony from another employee
   whom the court found not credible.
          From the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that plaintiff
   “lacks more to corroborate her story that pulling the bag of ice out of the
   freezer left ice or a puddle of water on the floor.” The court presented a
   comprehensive summary of premises liability in Texas. In doing so, the court
   offered an extensive discussion of the main case relied on by the plaintiff, 3 in
   which this court reversed a summary judgment regarding knowledge of a
   retail spill. The court noted the significant differences between the facts in
          _____________________
          1
              Ratliff v. Governor’s Highway Safety Program, 791 F.2d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 1986).
          2
              Burma Navigation Corp. v. Reliant Seahorse M/V, 99 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 1996).
          3
              Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, Tex., L.L.C., 893 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2018) (Smith, J.).

                                                     2
Case: 22-50785      Document: 00516694927          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                    No. 22-50785

   Garcia and here.
          There is no clear error. The judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially
   for the reasons set forth by the district court in its findings and conclusions
   of August 5, 2022.

                                             3