Ingram v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 February 1997
• Docket Number: No. 84142,WAL-MART,84142
• Citation: Ingram v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 932 P.2d 1128, 1997 OK 11 (Okla. 1997)
• Parties: Dovie S. INGRAM and Roy S. Ingram, Plaintiffs, v.STORES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1128

932 P.2d 1128

1997 OK 11

Dovie S. INGRAM and Roy S. Ingram, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant.

No. 84142.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 18, 1997.

Janet Brenan Sherry, Angela R. Hendrix, Steidley & Neal, Muskogee, for Appellee.

W.E. Sparks, Tulsa, for Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HARGRAVE, Justice.

Dovie S. Ingram slipped and fell while shopping in a Wal-Mart store located in Durant, Oklahoma on May 22, 1990. There is no dispute that she was an invitee. She sued Wal-Mart for negligence, and her husband sought damages for loss of consortium. Wal-Mart answered, discovery was conducted, and Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs responded, and on July 5, 1994 the trial court heard oral arguments and entered an order dated July 13, 1994 granting Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that plaintiff could not prove the elements of negligence at trial. Plaintiffs assert that this is an incorrect standard because Wal-Mart had not made a showing that there was no controversy as to any material fact. Plaintiffs argue that they had no burden to provide evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment until the moving party had shown that no controversy existed as to any material fact.

In its motion, Wal-Mart stated two "uncontroverted facts": 1) that Dovie Ingram could not attest from firsthand knowledge that she fell as a result of toothpicks or debris/contraband on the floor of Wal-Mart's Durant, Oklahoma store, and, 2) that there was no evidence that Wal-Mart created the condition or had notice of toothpicks or debris/contraband on the floor of its Durant, Oklahoma store which caused or contributed to Dovie Ingram's alleged fall. Plaintiff admitted the first fact and disputed the second.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Wal-Mart offered only some excerpts from the depositions of Dovie Ingram, Darla Ingram and Marvin Ingram. Dovie Ingram testified that she felt something under her foot, but did not know what caused her fall. She testified that a woman who assisted her after her fall stated that there were toothpicks on the floor. Dovie Ingram did not see toothpicks on the floor, did not know how they got there, and did not know whether Wal-Mart knew they were there. Darla Ingram and Marvin Ingram, who are related to Dovie Ingram and accompanied her to Wal-Mart, stated that they saw some wooden toothpicks on the floor where Dovie Ingram fell, but did not know how they got there, how long they had been there, or whether anyone from Wal-Mart knew they were there. Based on this information, Wal-Mart argued that plaintiff would not be able to prove her negligence case because she had not shown that defendant created the dangerous condition or should have known of it.

The trial court erred in granting Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper only when pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions or other evidentiary materials establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Skinner v. Braum's Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla.1995). The movant must show that there is no controversy as to any...