Gillespie v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

• Citation: 861 F.Supp.2d 637
• Decision Date: 23 May 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. CCB–10–3332.
• Parties: Tanya GILLESPIE v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

861 F.Supp.2d 637

Tanya GILLESPIE

v.RUBY TUESDAY, INC.

Civil No. CCB–10–3332.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

May 23, 2012.

Karmen M. Slezak, Parker, Pallett & Slezak LLC, White Marsh, MD, Colin Bell, Kristine Roman Zenkewicz, Ralph L. Arnsdorf, Franklin and Prokopik PC, Baltimore, MD, for Tanya Gillespie.

Brian A. Cafritz, Kalbaugh Pfund and Messersmith PC, Richmond, VA, for Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Tanya Gillespie has filed a negligence action against Ruby Tuesday, Inc. Her claims arise from injuries sustained when a light fixture fell from the restaurant's ceiling and struck her on the head while she was eating lunch. Following discovery, Ruby Tuesday filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Ms. Gillespie failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. (ECF No. 36.) Ms. Gillespie subsequently filed a motion for spoliation sanctions. (ECF No. 41.) The matter has been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny Ruby Tuesday's motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, finding that the case is entitled to proceed, the court will deny Ms. Gillespie's motion for spoliation sanctions without prejudice.

Background

On October 27, 2007, Tanya Gillespie went to a Ruby Tuesday restaurant in Aberdeen, Maryland for lunch. A waiter showed Ms. Gillespie and her three colleagues to a table. Before seating Ms. Gillespie and her party, the waiter stood on a chair and adjusted the lamp hanging over their table. About thirty minutes later, the lampshade suddenly fell from the ceiling and struck Ms. Gillespie's head and neck.

The light fixture in question is a Tiffany-style pendant lamp that was hanging from the ceiling over the dining tables in the restaurant. The lampshade was 24 inches and consisted of “colored, decorative panes secured to a welded metal frame.” (ECF No. 37, p. 2.) The lamp was manufactured by a company called Unique Lighting and installed by an electrician hired by the building's general contractor. ( Id.) The lamp hung from the ceiling on metal chains, and the height of the lamp could be adjusted using hooks to shorten or lengthen the chain. Ruby Tuesday estimates that more than 14,380 Tiffany-style lamps were used in Ruby Tuesday restaurants over a 20–year period. ( Id.) According to Ruby Tuesday, the Tiffany-style lights were removed from all Ruby Tuesday restaurants over the course of 2007 as part of a “re-imaging” initiative by the corporate owner. ( Id. at 3.)

Photographs taken by the plaintiff after the incident indicate that the welding on the upper portion of the shade failed. When the lampshade fell, the upper portion remained attached to the chain while the lower portion fell onto Ms. Gillespie. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant claims to know why the lamp broke. Furthermore, the lamp is no longer available for inspection. According to Ruby Tuesday, the company “attempted to preserve the shade after the incident,” but the lamp was misplaced. ( Id. at 5–6.) Senior Regional Partner Rob Prunty stated that Ruby Tuesday disposed of the lamp “in [the] ordinary course of business.” (ECF No. 42, Exh. 5, p. 1.)

In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argues that Ms. Gillespie failed to make a prima facie case for negligence. Ruby Tuesday contends that as a business invitee, Ms. Gillespie must show that Ruby Tuesday either “created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive knowledge of it” in order to prevail in an action for negligence under Maryland law. Carter v. Shoppers Food Warehouse MD Corp., 126 Md.App. 147, 163, 727 A.2d 958 (1999). According to Ruby Tuesday, Ms. Gillespie has presented no evidence that Ruby Tuesday created a dangerous condition that caused the lampshade to fall or that Ruby Tuesday had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises. (ECF No. 37, p. 9, 15.) Ruby Tuesday claims that Ms. Gillespie cannot recover because her claims are based on “mere speculation or conjecture.” ( Id. at 10.)

Ruby Tuesday also argues that Ms. Gillespie cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur to create an inference of negligence in this case. Ruby Tuesday argues that res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable because the lamp was not in Ruby Tuesday's exclusive control and, in any event, the failure of the lamp is too complex and technical to permit a jury to infer negligence. (ECF No. 45, p. 9, 15.) Ruby Tuesday also argues Ms. Gillespie “cannot rely on res ipsa because she has all of the principle [sic] evidence and could have proven her case had she conducted proper discovery.” ( Id. at 7.) Ruby Tuesday faults Ms. Gillespie for failing to provide expert testimony as to the cause of the lamp's failure. (ECF No. 37, p. 6.)

In her opposition motion, Ms. Gillespie argues that Ruby Tuesday was negligent because it created the dangerous condition that led to the lampshade falling on her head. She urges the court to find that the waiter caused the lamp to fall by adjusting it shortly before it broke. (ECF No. 43, p. 7.) Moreover, she argues that her inability to identify the cause of the incident with greater specificity is a result of “Ruby Tuesday's complete disregard for preserving the very thing that struck Ms. Gillespie on the head.” ( Id.) Ms. Gillespie claims that “[w]ithout examination of the entire light fixture, and in particular, the area of defect, it is impossible to state precisely the exact cause of the accident.” ( Id.)

Furthermore, Ms. Gillespie argues that the court should allow the jury to infer negligence based on res ipsa loquitur. She argues she has met the three requirements for res ipsa loquitur by showing: “(1) a casualty of a kind that does not ordinarily occur absent negligence, (2) that was caused by an instrumentality exclusively in the defendant's control, and (3) that was not caused by an act or omission of the plaintiff.” Holzhauer v. Saks & Co., 346 Md. 328, 335–36, 697 A.2d 89 (1997) (citing Dover Elevator v. Swann, 334 Md. 231, 236–37, 638 A.2d 762 (1994)).

Legal Standard

Summary Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment “should be rendered 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 Supreme Court has clarified that this does not mean that any factual dispute will defeat the motion. “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). Whether a fact is material depends upon the substantive law. See id.

“A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,’ but rather must ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir.2003) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). The court must “view the facts and draw reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion,’ ” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Diebold, 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)), but the court also must abide by the “affirmative obligation of the trial judge to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial.” Drewitt v. Pratt, 999 F.2d 774, 778–79 (4th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Negligence and Res Ipsa Loquitur

Under Maryland law, a party seeking to recover for negligence must establish four elements: “(1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty.” Casey v. Geek Squad Subsidiary Best Buy Stores, L.P., 823 F.Supp.2d 334, 350 (D.Md.2011) (quoting Horridge v. St. Mary's County Dept. of Soc. Services, 382 Md. 170, 182, 854 A.2d 1232 (2004)).

As Ruby Tuesday stipulated, Ms. Gillespie is properly classified as a business invitee. (ECF No. 37, p. 8.) The duty owed to an invitee is “to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep [the] premises safe for the invitee and to protect [the invitee] from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for [the invitee's] own safety will not discover.” Deboy v. City of Crisfield, 167 Md.App. 548, 555, 893 A.2d 1189 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). Ruby Tuesday is not an “insurer of [Ms. Gillespie's] safety,” but nonetheless owes Ms. Gillespie “the duty to use ordinary care to have its premises in a reasonably safe condition.” Norris v. Ross Stores, Inc., 159 Md.App. 323, 335, 859 A.2d 266 (2004).

Under some circumstances, a plaintiff seeking to make a prima facie case of negligence may invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows a plaintiff the opportunity to establish a prima facie case when he or she could not otherwise satisfy the traditional requirements for proof of negligence.” Vito v. Sargis & Jones, Ltd., 108 Md.App. 408, 417, 672 A.2d 129 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Res ipsa loquitur is “merely a short way of saying that the circumstances attendant upon an accident are themselves of such a character as to justify a jury in inferring negligence as the cause of that accident....” Norris, 159 Md.App....