Garrison v. Sam's East, Inc., 100119 FED11, 19-11630

Docket Nº:19-11630
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:ANGELA GARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAM'S EAST, INC., SAM'S EAST, INC., d/b/a Sam's Club, WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC., Defendants - Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 01, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ANGELA GARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SAM'S EAST, INC., SAM'S EAST, INC., d/b/a Sam's Club, WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC., Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-11630

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

October 1, 2019

DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00381-C

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this slip-and-fall case, Angela Garrison appeals the district court's (1) exclusion of evidence, (2) limitation on discovery, and (3) grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Sam's East, Inc.-doing business as Sam's Club-and Walmart on her premises-liability claims for negligence and wantonness. After careful review, we affirm.

I

The facts of this case are straightforward. After purchasing a fountain drink from the Sam's Club cafe, Garrison fell as she turned away from the counter. After the fall, she felt wet and observed liquid on the floor that extended underneath the counter. She also saw a mop behind the counter. Walmart employees cleaned up the area using cones, paper towels, and the mop. Five months after the fall, Garrison sent Sam's a letter demanding that it preserve all video evidence of the incident. Unfortunately, the video system retains footage for only three months, and as a result some (but not all) of the pertinent video had already been overwritten. Ultimately, neither the remaining surveillance video nor any witness has been able to identify the source of the liquid or how long it had been on the floor. Nor could anyone describe the nature or size of the spill.

Garrison filed suit asserting premises-liability claims for negligence and wantonness. During proceedings below, the district court excluded Garrison's out-of-court statements to her insurance claims adjuster as hearsay and denied her motion to compel discovery into whether Walmart remodeled the store after the incident, possibly as a subsequent remedial measure. She now appeals these orders,1 as well as the district court's ultimate grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, arguing that there is sufficient evidence of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP