Giles v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00020-N |
| Parties | MARY GILES and HENRY STEPHENS, Plaintiffs, v. WINN-DIXIE MONTGOMERY, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This action is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment (doc. 29-32) filed by the defendant, Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC ("Winn-Dixie"). Pursuant to the consent of the parties (doc. 8), this action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. See Doc. 10. Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiff's response in opposition thereto (doc. 34-35), Winn Dixie's reply (docs. 36-37), and all other pertinent portions of the record, the undersigned concludes that the motion is due to be granted.
In this action, plaintiffs allege that on December 22, 2010, they went shopping for groceries at Winn Dixie store number 580 in Theodore Alabama, during the course of which Mary Giles "slipped in an unknown substance and fell to the floor." (Doc. 1-1 at p. 2, ¶¶ 7-8). Plaintiffs filed this action in the Circuit Court of Mobile County seeking damages for the alleged serious injuries causedby the fall. (Id.) The Complaint contains counts for negligence and wantonness on behalf of Giles, as well as a count for loss of consortium on behalf of her husband, Henry Stephens. (Id.) Winn-Dixie removed the action to this Court on January 17, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1441(b), which permits a defendant to remove a case to federal court where there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. (Doc. 1 at pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 5-7). Winn-Dixie simultaneously filed its Answer on January 17, 2013 (Doc. 2). Following the close of discovery, Winn Dixie filed the present motion for summary judgment on October 21, 2013. (Docs. 29-32). Plaintiffs' response in opposition was filed on November 22, 2013. (Doc. 34). Winn-Dixie filed a reply on November 256, 2013 (Doc. 36). The issues have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication.
Upon consideration of the parties' respective arguments and the evidence of record, both testamentary and documentary, the undersigned finds the following facts to be undisputed in this case:
1. On December 22, 2010, Plaintiff Mary Giles "slipped in an unknown substance and fell to the floor" at Winn Dixie store number 580 in Theodore, Alabama. (Doc. 1-1 at ¶¶ 7-8). The fall occurred on the store's "drink aisle -Aisle 17. Plaintiff Henry Stephens accompanied Giles to Winn Dixie, however, he remained at the checkout counter (Checkout Register # 5), when Giles returned to the drink aisle and subsequently fell.
2. The following sequence of events set forth by the defendant, Winn-Dixie Montgomery, LLC ("Winn-Dixie"), have not been challenged or disputed by the plaintiffs:
Plaintiffs [Mary] Giles and [Henry] Stephens arrived at the store at 3:38 p.m. (Exh. A [doc. 31-1], Declaration of Jeremy McPherson, ¶ 4). They shopped approximately 20 minutes before heading down the "drink aisle," which was Aisle 17. (Id.). They actually walked down the drink aisle at 3:59 p.m.. (Id.; Exh. B [doc. 31-2], Dep. Of H. Stephens, at pp. 21:14-19 and 22:10-13). On this first trip down the drink aisle, they did not slip, and they also did not observe any foreign substance on the floor. (Exh. B [doc. 31-2], at pp. 21-14-19; 28:14-29:3). They then proceeded to the checkout line approximately four minutes later at 4:03 p.m. (Exh. A [doc. 31-1], ¶ 4). While in the checkout line, Plaintiff Giles decided to return to the drink aisle to get two more 12-packs of drinks at 4:05 p.m. (Id.; Exh. B [doc. 31-2], at p. 22:1-9; Exh. C [doc. 31-3], Dep. of M. Giles, at pp. 27:5-28:5). Giles picked up the two twelve packs of drinks and, after turning around to return back to the checkout line, she fell on the drink aisle. (Exh. C [doc. 31-3], at pp. 41:19-42:3). The store manager was notified of the fall and went to the scene at 4:07 p.m. (Exh. A [doc. 31-1], ¶ 4).
(Doc. 32 at ¶ 3, footnotes omitted).
3. Giles testified that she never saw anything on the floor of the drink aisle (Aisle 17) before she fell. (Doc. 31-3 at p. 35:15-17). After the fall, the only substance she observed was a "clear" liquid. (Id., at p. 34:1-10). She could not recall if it was in a single puddle or if there were droplets, and she also cannot recall if there were any streaks through the substance. (Id., at p. 34:11-35:3).Giles did not know where this clear liquid came from, and has no idea how it got on the floor, or how long it had been on the floor. (Id., at p. 35:4-14). Giles agreed that this clear liquid she saw after the fall could have been Sprite. (Id., at pp. 35:18-36:12). During the fall, Giles actually dropped a 12-pack of Sprite, and the box burst open. (Id., at p. 35:18-23). Stephens confirmed that, when he arrived on the scene, a few Sprite cans had burst open when Giles fell, they were spraying in the air, and the liquid they saw on the floor could have been the same Sprite that burst when Giles fell. (Exh. B, at pp. 30:17-33:10).
4. Until September 2013, Plaintiffs "believed that Mary Giles had slipped in a liquid that had been spilled on the floor of aisle 17 of Defendant's store." (Doc. 34 at pp. 1-2). They now contend, based solely on their review of the store's surveillance videos, that Giles "unknowingly stood in [] water for approximately two minutes" at Cash Register Number 5's checkout lane and then walked to aisle 17 "where the water on her shoes caused her to slip and fall." (Id. at p. 2).2 They contend that the water was left by an employee of Winn-Dixiewho mopped the floor at Cash Register Number 5 at 3:59 p.m. The video shows the employee drying the lane with paper towels at 4:01 p.m., and then leaving with the mop prior to plaintiffs entering the checkout lane at 4:03 p.m. Stephens, followed by the shopping cart, and then Giles, entered Cash Register Lane 5 behind another customer who entered Lane 5 immediately after the floor was mopped and dried. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2; see also Doc. 31-1 at pp. 11-16, 21; and p. 6 (Exh 2).
5. Prior to the time that Giles and Stephens entered the lane for Cash Register Number 5, the store manager, Jeremy McPherson, asked an employee to get a damp mop to remove some light black marks from the floor of that lane. (Doc. 31-1 at ¶ 9). The employee closed off the lane, mopped the floor, dried it with paper towels, and then re-opened the lane. (Id.). Plaintiffs maintain that Winn-Dixie's surveillance videos "shows that a Winn Dixie employee left mop water on the floor at cash register number 5" (doc. 34 at ¶ 1).
6. Giles acknowledges that the distance between Cash Register Number 5 and Aisle 17 where she fell is 127 feet. (Doc. 31-1 at ¶ 11; see also, Doc. 31-1 at p. 22). Plaintiffs do not contend that the floor surface material varied in any manner in the 127 feet at issue.
7. Giles testified that the shoes she wore that day were pink crocs. (Doc. 33-3 at p. 8:20-25). Plaintiffs contend, inter alia, that water from the floor at Cash Register Number 5 "could have been" trapped in the crevices of Giles' shoes and transported 127 feet away to Aisle 17 where she fell. (Doc. 34 at 5; see also n.2, supra).
Summary judgment should be granted only "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The party seeking summary judgment bears "the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). The party seeking summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). Once the moving party has satisfied its responsibility, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.
Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen, 965 F.2d 994, 999 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). "In determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist, we resolve all ambiguities and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party." Gonzalez v. Lee County Housing Authority, 161 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 1998), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
However, the mere existence of any factual dispute will not automatically necessitate denial of a motion for summary judgment; rather, only factual disputes that are material preclude entry of summary judgment. Lofton v. Secretary of Dept. of Children and Family Services, 358 F.3d 804, 809 (11th Cir. 2004). Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 807 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Also, "what is considered to be 'facts' at the summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial