Headley v. Home Depot United Statesa., Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 5:13-cv-1839 |
| Parties | JOELLEN HEADLEY, et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., DEFENDANTS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Home Depot Store Support LLC (collectively, "defendants" or "Home Depot"). (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs have filed an opposition (Doc. No. 29), and defendants have filed supplemental exhibits (Doc. No. 24), as well as a reply (Doc. No. 33). The matter is fully briefed and is ripe for adjudication.
On July 31, 2011, between 12:00 and 1:00 PM, plaintiff Joellen Headley ("Headley") and her husband, plaintiff Ronnie Headley, visited defendants' store located in Massillon, Ohio, on Lincoln Way East. (Doc. No. 17 at 104.) Headley estimated that she had visited this location one to two times per year since its construction over a decade ago. (Headley Dep., Doc. No. 18 at 177.)
On the date in question—a hot and sunny summer Sunday—Headley wore sandals with a 1.5" to 2" heel. (Id. at 208-09.) Headley accessed the store through the open-air Garden Center entrance, one of two available customer entrances. (Id. at 177-78.) After crossinga paved area between the Garden Center and the parking lot, Headley entered the Garden Center without incident. (Id. at 193.) Headley did not look at the ground as she entered the Garden Center, testifying that though "[t]here could have been a hose[,]" she could not recall seeing one as she entered. (Id. at 192.)
Once inside the Garden Center, Headley and her husband took five to ten minutes to strategize their shopping excursion. (Id. at 195.) As agreed upon, Ronnie Headley walked toward the main store to purchase merchandise inside while Headley returned outside to browse the flowers located in the paved area between the parking lot and Garden Center. (Id.) Headley saw two Home Depot employees inside the Garden Center, neither of whom mentioned or warned of a hose on the ground. (Id. at 194.) Headley does not recall seeing any Home Depot employees lay down a hose during her conversation with her husband. (Id. at 234.)
After speaking with her husband, Headley turned back towards the open-air entrance. Before reaching the threshold of the Garden Center, she stepped on a hose, felt her ankle pop, and fell forward. (Id. at 196.) Headley testified that the hose "rolled with [her] ankle[]" when she stepped on it, causing her to fall forward. (Id. at 211.) As Headley fell, she looked down and saw the hose:
(Id. at 217.) She landed "between the inside of the store and the outside of the store." (Id. at 196.)
Directly before her fall, Headley "was looking around at the store, what was around [her,]" and did not see the hose before stepping on it. (Id. at 205.) She admitted that she"should have been looking where [she] was going." (Id. at 226.) She cannot recall whether she glanced at the floor, but distinctly denied seeing the hose before she fell:
(Id. at 205.) Headley admitted that she had no visibility problems inside the Garden Center. (Id. at 204.) Both near- and farsighted, Headley wears glasses to drive, but does not recall whether she wore glasses on the date in question. (Id. at 182.)
Headley suffered a fractured right ankle in the fall, which is presently "doing well[,]" though it causes Headley discomfort in cold temperatures or when she stays on her feet too long. (Id. at 236.) She also fractured her left shoulder in three places, necessitating surgery in August 2011. (Id. at 237-38.) Due to persistent pain in her left shoulder, Headley has used prescription strength ibuprofen since her fall. (Id. at 238.) While her orthopedic surgeon recommends an additional shoulder surgery to ameliorate lingering pain and improve mobility, Headley has thus far declined the surgery, citing her work schedule. (Id. at 239-40.) At present, in addition to her pain level—five out of ten—she cannot raise her left arm over her head, sleep on her left side, swim, or lift heavy objects. (Id. at 242-43.)
On July 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed negligence and loss of consortium claims against defendants in the Stark County Common Pleas Court (Doc. No. 1-1), and defendants timely removed to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants now move for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiffs have failed (1) to present any evidence that Home Depot knew or should have known that the hose posed a danger or (2) to show that the hose was not an open and obvious condition. (Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs oppose. (Doc. No. 29.) To show that Home Depot had notice, theysupplied the affidavit of Ronnie Headley, in which he states that a Home Depot employee informed him "that she had advised her supervisor prior to the incident that it was just a matter of time until someone was going to fall over the hose stretched across the aisle way floor." (Doc. No. 29-1.) To refute the allegation that the hose was an open and obvious danger, plaintiffs argue that "[t]he presence of a hose to lie on the floor stretching across an aisle way while customers were shopping during a busy period is not so ordinary or common that it cannot be considered unreasonably dangerous." (Doc. No. 29 at 317.) In their reply brief, defendants argue that plaintiffs failed to show that the hose was not an open and obvious danger and that the affidavit of Ronnie Headley cannot be considered, as it is inadmissible hearsay. (Doc. No. 33.)
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), when a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, it shall be granted "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."
An opposing party may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, by affidavits or by materials in the record, the opposing party must set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Affidavits or declarations filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment "must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). A movant is not required to file affidavits or other similar materials negating a claim on which its opponent bears the burden of proof, so long as the movant relies upon the absence of the essential element in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).
In reviewing summary judgment motions, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); White v. Turfway Park Racing Ass'n., 909 F.2d 941, 943-44 (6th Cir. 1990), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 111 S. Ct. 1217, 113 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1991). A fact is "material" only if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Determination of whether a factual issue is "genuine" requires consideration of the applicable evidentiary standards. Thus, in most civil cases the Court must decide "whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the [non-moving party] is entitled to a verdict[.]" Id. at 252.
Summary judgment is appropriate whenever the non-moving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Moreover, "[t]he trial court no longer has the duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact." Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Willoughby, 863 F.2d 1029, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The non-moving party is under an affirmative duty to point out specific facts in the record as it has been established that create a genuine issue of material fact. Fulson v. City of Columbus, 801 F. Supp. 1, 4 (S.D. Ohio 1992). The non-movant must show more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome summary judgment; it is not enough for the non-moving party to show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts. Id.
Under Ohio law, "in order to establish actionable negligence, one seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty, the breach of the duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom." Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St. 2d 282, 285, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981) (citing Feldman v. Howard, 10 Ohio St. 2d 189, 193, 226 N.E.2d 564 (1967)). The duty owed by a landowner to an entrant depends upon the entrant's status. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St. 3d 312, 315, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996). Landowners owe invitees—those who have entered the property by invitation, express or implied, for a purpose beneficial to the owner—the duty to exercise ordinary care by "maintaining the premises in a safe condition." Provencher v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 49 Ohio St....
To continue reading
Request your trial