Court Opinion

ID: 9941813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-17 01:02:15.19906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:03.902812
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40138            Document: 56-2          Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/16/2024

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                     No. 23-40138                             February 16, 2024
                                   ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
Kenneth Bradford,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Walmart Stores Texas, L.L.C.,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:21-CV-363
                   ______________________________

Before Stewart, Clement, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Kenneth Bradford sued Walmart Stores Texas, L.L.C. after allegedly
slipping and falling on smashed grapes on the floor of one of its stores. The
district court granted summary judgment for Walmart. We AFFIRM.
                                             I.
       Bradford alleges that on July 10, 2020, around 7:00 p.m., he slipped
on grapes smashed on the floor and fell while shopping at a Beaumont, Texas
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40138         Document: 56-2       Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                 No. 23-40138

Walmart and sustained injuries because of his fall. Surveillance video from
two cameras monitoring the produce section captured the incident. Both
videos show customers and Walmart employees passing through the produce
section before Bradford’s fall, but the low-resolution footage does not clearly
show the details of any single person’s conduct, nor the condition of the floor
where Bradford fell.
       About two weeks later, on July 23, 2020, an unknown Walmart
employee created a post-incident investigation note based on his or her
review of the surveillance video footage and photos taken after the incident.
The investigation note describes two employees walking through or around
the area of the incident before Bradford fell. It also includes a “Liability
Assessment” of “Probable, there was an assoc[iate] who walked over the
[area of the incident] 3 min[utes] prior to the incident. There weren’t any
sources of the hazard from when the [last employee] walked through the [area
of the incident] and [when Bradford] fell.”
       On September 29, 2020, Bradford sued Walmart in state court,
seeking personal injury damages for negligence based on premises liability.
Walmart removed the case to federal court. On June 23, 2022, Walmart
moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on February
1, 2023. Bradford appeals.
                                      II.
       We review grants of summary judgment de novo and apply the same
standard on appeal that was applied by the district court. McCarty v. Hillstone
Rest. Grp., Inc., 864 F.3d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment is
appropriate “if 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.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A dispute as to a material fact is Bgenuine’ if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

                                            2
Case: 23-40138         Document: 56-2         Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                   No. 23-40138

nonmoving party.” Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., 402 F.3d 536, 540 (5th
Cir. 2005). In reviewing the record, “the court must draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
       Summary judgment, however, cannot be defeated with “conclus[ory]
allegations, unsupported assertions, or presentation of only a scintilla of
evidence.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 571 (5th Cir. 2012). Instead,
“the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). We will grant summary judgment when
“critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not
support a judgment in favor of the nonmovant.” Armstrong v. City of Dallas,
997 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir. 1993).
       “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings that determine the
summary judgment record for abuse of discretion.” Patel v. Tex. Tech Univ.,
941 F.3d 743, 746 (5th Cir. 2019). “A trial court abuses its discretion when
its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence.” Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581,
584 (5th Cir. 2003).
                                       III.
       To succeed on his premises liability claim, Bradford 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.” Henkel
v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex. 2014). This appeal concerns only the

                                              3
Case: 23-40138        Document: 56-2        Page: 4    Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                   No. 23-40138

first element: whether Walmart had “actual or constructive knowledge” of
the smashed grapes on the floor.
       A plaintiff may satisfy the “knowledge” element by showing that “(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.” See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812,
814 (Tex. 2002). Here, Bradford has not identified evidence from which a
jury could conclude that Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge.
                                       A.
       Regarding actual knowledge, the record does not contain enough
evidence to show that Walmart employees themselves smashed the grapes
on the floor, nor that Walmart actually knew about the smashed grapes prior
to the accident. The only two pieces of evidence Bradford points to are (1)
the video footage and (2) the post-incident investigation note.
       At no point in the video footage are grapes visible on the floor, nor is
there any frame where an employee is seen smashing any grapes. Moreover,
dozens of other store patrons are seen walking through the area of incident
before Bradford’s fall. At best, the video proves that Walmart employees
were near the area of incident before Bradford’s fall. Any further conclusions
would be mere suspicion, which is “insufficient to carry [Bradford’s] burden
of establishing a genuine issue for trial.” See McCarty, 864 F.3d at 359.
       As for the post-incident investigation note, the district court declined
to consider the liability assessment, concluding it was hearsay. Bradford does
not argue that this conclusion was error. Instead, he states in a single sentence
in a footnote that the district court should have considered the evidence
because it could have been “proven up via deposition testimony or calling the
author of the investigative report to testify at trial.” Briefly mentioning an

                                            4
 Case: 23-40138          Document: 56-2          Page: 5      Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                       No. 23-40138

argument in a footnote without analysis abandons it. United States v. Torres-
Aguilar, 352 F.3d 934, 936 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003). Therefore, we need not
consider whether the district court erred in excluding the assessment as
hearsay. 1
        With respect to the rest of the note describing the incident, the district
court determined that it was “not relevant” because the court could
independently review the video and draw its own conclusions. We agree that
this portion of the report was inadmissible, but under Federal Rule of
Evidence 701, which governs the admission of lay testimony. See United
States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014) (“We may affirm the
district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.”).
“Testimony on topics that the jury is fully capable of determining for
itself . . . is inadmissible under Rule 701.” United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d
713, 733 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that lay testimony is permitted because it
describes “something that the jurors could not otherwise experience for themselves
by drawing upon the witness’s sensory and experiential observations that
were made as a first-hand witness to a particular event” (citation omitted)).
The observations in the post-incident note were seemingly not based on the
Walmart employee’s own first-hand observations, but rather his or her
descriptions upon viewing the photos and videos. Because a jury would be
capable of viewing the photos and videos itself, the employee’s descriptions
of that evidence are inadmissible.

        _____________________
        1
          Even if we did, the liability assessment would still be inadmissible. Federal Rule
of Evidence 704 “does not allow a witness to give legal conclusions,” Nat’l Oilwell Varco,
L.P. v. Auto-Dril, Inc., 68 F.4th 206, 221 (5th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted); see United
States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423, 435 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that Rule 704(a) “prohibits
any witness, expert or lay, from testifying to a legal conclusion”). And the employee’s
conclusion that liability is “[p]robable” is a legal conclusion.

                                                 5
Case: 23-40138         Document: 56-2        Page: 6     Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                   No. 23-40138

                                        B.
       Bradford next argues that it was more likely than not that the grapes
were on the floor long enough to give Walmart a reasonable opportunity to
discover them. How much time is required to establish a reasonable
opportunity “depend[s] upon the facts and circumstances presented.” Reece,
81 S.W.3d at 816. While evidence of proximity and conspicuity are often
relevant to our analysis, see id., they “on their own . . . are insufficient to show
constructive notice.” Murray v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc., 626 F. App’x 515, 517 (5th
Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (citing Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 816). “[T]here must be
some proof of how long the hazard was there before liability can be imposed
on the premises owner for failing to discover and rectify, or warn of, the
dangerous condition.” Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 816. And, if evidence “supports
only the possibility that the dangerous condition existed long enough to give
[the premises owner] a reasonable opportunity to discover it,” the owner
cannot be charged with constructive knowledge. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998).
       Here, evidence of longevity is Bradford’s Achilles’ heel. The record
does not show how long the smashed grapes were on the floor. The video
evidence does not show when the grapes fell or when they were smashed; in
fact, the grapes are never visible at all. Accordingly, there is “no evidence
[that] would permit [a] jury to trace the alleged slip risk to a particular
antecedent event.” McCarty, 864 F.3d at 360.
       Bradford argues that the grapes were discolored and smashed into
multiple pieces, which “grapes are not supposed to be,” in an effort to prove
that the grapes were on the floor long enough for Walmart to discover them.
Texas courts, however, have routinely held that this type of evidence is
insufficient to establish constructive knowledge. See, e.g., Corbin v. Safeway
Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983) (“[T]estimony that the grapes

                                             6
Case: 23-40138       Document: 56-2        Page: 7   Date Filed: 02/16/2024

                                  No. 23-40138

. . . were discolored and ruptured does not tend to prove that the grapes had
been on the floor a sufficient time to impute knowledge of their location to
Safeway.”); Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d at 938.
                              *        *         *
      For the foregoing reasons, Bradford fails to identify any evidence of
actual or constructive knowledge. Summary judgment was proper.
AFFIRMED.

                                           7