Betts v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:18-cv-02923-TWP-TAB |
| Parties | LAMARR BETTS, and RENEE BETTS, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Walmart") (Filing No. 136). Plaintiffs LaMarr Betts ("Mr. Betts") and Renee Betts ("Mrs. Betts") (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit for premises liability negligence against Walmart after Mr. Betts suffered a traumatic work-related personal injury that occurred on March 15, 2017. Following discovery, Walmart filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim, arguing that the evidence does not support a claim of negligence. For the following reasons, the Court grants Walmart's Motion.
The following facts are not necessarily objectively true, but as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the facts are presented in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs as the non-moving party. See Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
The events that give rise to this action occurred at a "Return Center" in Greenfield, Indiana (the "Greenfield Return Center"). At the time of the incident, the Greenfield Return Center was owned by Harvest A. MCCP 104, LLC, and leased to Walmart Stores East, LP. The commencement date of the lease was March 1, 2015, and the lease is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2030 (Filing No. 138-12; Filing No. 138-13; Filing No. 138-14 at 3).
The design of the layout of the Return Center was done by Intelligrated Systems, LLC ("Intelligrated") and Walmart, and Walmart contracted with Intelligrated to install the conveyor system at the Greenfield Return Center (Filing No. 168-4 at 1, 3, 11, 107, 123-25). The conveyor system has a fixed portion bolted into the ground as well as an extendable belt. This extendable belt is called a truck unloader and extends into a semi-trailer parked at the dock (Filing No. 168-3 at 1-5; Filing No. 168-4 at 107; Filing No. 138-4 at 11, 16).
The contract between Walmart and Intelligrated provided that Walmart was responsible for the installation of the protection for the conveyor system, including highway guarding (Filing No. 168-4 at 3, 123, 125, 131). Yellow highway guarding was placed on both sides of the conveyor system at issue (Filing No. 168-3 at 2-5). The yellow highway guarding at issue was installed at Walmart's direction and request (Filing No. 168-2 at 1). The yellow highway guarding was installed to protect both the conveyor system equipment and the people at the Greenfield Return Center (Filing No. 138-2 at 10-11). The end of the yellow highway guarding aligns with the end of the fixed portion of the conveyor system that does not extend out. When fully retracted, the extendable portion of the conveyor system sticks out beyond the end of the yellow highway guarding (Filing No. 138-4 at 11, 16; Filing No. 168-3 at 1-3). Extending the yellow highway guarding to the end of the extendable portion of the conveyor system in its fully retracted position would not have interfered with the operation of the Greenfield Return Center (Filing No. 138-4 at 16).
Walmart processes returned merchandise at the Greenfield Return Center. Walmart contracted with Exel/DHL ("DHL") to receive and process the returns for Walmart at the Greenfield Return Center. Walmart also directed how much product was received at the Greenfield Return Center (Filing No. 138-1 at 4-5; Filing No. 138-2 at 9, 12). The Greenfield Return Center was one of five return centers operated contractually by DHL at the time of the incident at issue (Filing No. 138-2 at 13). Under their contract, Walmart and DHL were independent contractor business entities, not partners or employer/employee (Filing No. 138-15 at 12). Pursuant to the contract, DHL was to operate the Greenfield Return Center for Walmart in accordance with the standards and specifications of Walmart. DHL was responsible for providing necessary management personnel and fully trained crews to operate the Greenfield Return Center. DHL was responsible for personnel safety matters and was required to operate the Greenfield Return Center in accordance with safety laws and regulations. Id. at 2-3.
DHL's General Manager, Jason Rowe, described the Greenfield Return Center as a "DHL facility." (Filing No. 138-2 at 10.) Walmart managed the disposition of returned merchandise through a remote warehouse manager system, but no Walmart employees were stationed in the Greenfield Return Center. Employees from Walmart came for periodic audits of regulated materials or for facility visits. Walmart employees completed tours of the Greenfield Return Center approximately twice a year. Walmart did not audit DHL for safety-related measures, DHL did not have safety reporting requirements to Walmart, and it was not typical for DHL to report its employees' injuries to Walmart. Id. at 9, 12-14; Filing No. 138-4 at 19.
DHL had safety policies and procedures manuals for the Greenfield Return Center as well as an employee handbook. DHL also had a safety manager-Bill Metcalfe-and a safety committee at the Greenfield Return Center. DHL also maintained quality training, maintenance, and operations departments at the Greenfield Return Center. DHL also provided its employees at the Greenfield Return Center with new hire orientation and safety training, covering topics such as lock-out/tag-out, working in confined spaces, slip-and-fall, and avoiding building hazards. Employees at the Greenfield Return Center had monthly DHL safety meetings (Filing No. 138-4 at 3-4; Filing No. 138-2 at 7).
Mr. Betts was an employee of DHL, not Walmart, and he worked at the Greenfield Return Center (Filing No. 168-1 at 3, 5). Mr. Betts began working for DHL in 2012 at a Walmart Return Center in Indianapolis, Indiana as an operations supervisor working the night shift. During his time at the Indianapolis Return Center, he personally used a pallet rider, referred to as a walkie rider[1], approximately twice a month. Mr. Betts later transferred to the Greenfield Return Center where he worked for a few years before the incident at issue occurred (Filing No. 138-1 at 2-3, 22).
Mr. Betts was part of the DHL team to help set up the Greenfield Return Center. He was familiar with the yellow highway guarding throughout the Greenfield Return Center. However, during his time at the Greenfield Return Center, he never paid attention to the fact that the extendable portion of the conveyor system stuck out beyond the yellow highway guarding positioned next to the fixed portion of the conveyor system. Id. at 2, 28, 31.
While working at the Greenfield Return Center, Mr. Betts received regular training and certification on how to maneuver walkie riders. Prior to the incident at issue, he was certified and recertified by DHL to operate a walkie rider. His training was through written tests, classroom settings, and hands-on tests during his tenure at both Return Centers. Recertification was provided by a "trainer" or shift manager. Mr. Betts was trained to drive cautiously, to keep a proper look out, and to look in the direction of his travel. He also was instructed that he could be pinned or crushed by an object protruding into the operator area of the walkie rider. The Greenfield Return Center was larger and busier than the Indianapolis Return Center where Mr. Betts initially had worked. As a result, Mr. Betts used a walkie rider to help his fellow employees more often than at the previous Return Center-about five to six times per week (Filing No. 138-1 at 5-7, 22-25; Filing No. 138-11).
On March 15, 2017, Mr. Betts was working at the Greenfield Return Center. That night, he had been working with another DHL employee to move product from the Return Center into a truck. At the time of his injury, Mr. Betts was riding on a walkie rider without any product on it. He was attempting to move out of the way of the other DHL employee. The two of them had been doing this same maneuver throughout the night. As he was traveling at a normal speed, Mr. Betts disengaged the ignition grip on the walkie rider expecting it to stop but it continued to move or float. He then struck the extendable portion of the conveyor system. Mr. Betts did not see the conveyor system prior to striking it. The inside of his left leg got pinned between the extendable portion of the conveyor system and the walkie rider. This resulted in his left leg being lacerated and his tibia and fibula being fractured. While no one witnessed the incident as it occurred, coworkers came to Mr. Betts' aid, paramedics eventually arrived, and he was taken to the hospital (Filing No. 138-1 at 2, 8-10, 14-16, 18, 30; Filing No. 138-3; Filing No. 138-5; Filing No....
To continue reading
Request your trial