Johnson v. Sam's W.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action ELH-21-2697
• Parties: MARTIZ JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SAM'S WEST, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

MARTIZ JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
SAM'S WEST, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. ELH-21-2697

United States District Court, D. Maryland

November 1, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge.

In this negligence case, plaintiff Martiz Johnson filed suit against Sam's West, Inc. (“Sam's Club”). ECF 2 (“Complaint”).^[1] Johnson alleges that, due to the negligence of Sam's Club, she sustained serious injuries on August 22, 2020, when she slipped while shopping at the Sam's Club located at 6410 Petrie Way in Baltimore (the “Store”). Id.

Sam's Club has moved for summary judgment (ECF 16), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 16-1) (collectively, the “Motion”) and three exhibits. ECF 16-2 to ECF 16-4. Defendant argues, inter alia, that there is no evidence as to how long the substance had been on the floor when the incident occurred. ECF 16-1 at 1.^[2] Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 17-1), supported by one exhibit. ECF 17-2. Defendant has replied. ECF 18.

The Motion has been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.

1

I. Factual Background

On the morning of August 22, 2020, plaintiff went to the Store to shop. ECF 16-2 (Johnson Deposition) at 22.^[3] After shopping for about an hour, plaintiff checked out at one of the cash registers. Id. at 24-26. As Johnson pushed her shopping cart towards the exit, she slipped on a substance on the floor, but did not fall. Id. at 27-28. Plaintiff was wearing slip-on shoes that fully encased her feet and had rubber soles. Id. at 23.

The incident was captured on store surveillance video footage. ECF 16-3. The video confirms that at 9:53:27 a.m. plaintiff slipped but did not fall. Id. No liquid or other foreign substance on the floor is visible in the video. Id.^[4]

Before the incident, plaintiff estimates that she was in the checkout line for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. Id. at 26. During that time, plaintiff did not see or hear anyone spill any substance. Id. at 27. Plaintiff also did not see any store personnel in the area of the incident. Id. at 34. The area where plaintiff slipped was well lighted and there was nothing obstructing the area. Id. at 34-35. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was looking straight ahead and did not see anything on the floor before she slipped. Id. at 34.

At her deposition, the plaintiff testified as follows, id. at 35:

Q: So after you slipped what did you observe on the floor

2

A: I turned around and noticed that there was a wet substance that my foot had slipped in, or had stepped in, and moving forward slipped under the back of the cart

Q: Can you describe the wet substance?

A: It was wet, slippery wet.

Q: Do you know what it was?

A: No.

Plaintiff did not see any broken product or other debris on the floor. ECF 16-32 at 38. Notably, plaintiff did not know how the substance got on the floor or how long it had been there before the incident. Id. at 37.

Johnson reported the incident to Tyeisha Tyler, a Front End Coach for Sam's Club. ECF 16-4 (Tyler Affidavit). When Tyler arrived at the scene, she observed the substance on the floor. Id. ¶ 4. Tyler did not identify any source of the substance and did not know how long the substance had been on the floor. Id. However, prior to the incident, Tyler had not received any reports of a foreign substance on the floor and no other customers had reported slipping in the area of the incident. Id. ¶ 5.

Defendant's employees took multiple photographs of the substance after the incident. They are docketed collectively at ECF 17-2. But, there is no evidence as to the identification of the substance.

II. Standard of Review

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate only “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.” See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Cybernet, LLC v. David, 954 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2020); Variety Stores, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d 651, 659 (4th Cir. 2018);

3

Iraq Middle Mkt. Dev. Found v. Harmoosh, 848 F.3d 235, 238 (4th Cir. 2017). To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of material fact so as to preclude the award of summary judgment as a matter of law. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 585-86 (2009); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986); Gordon v. CIGNA Corp., 890 F.3d 463, 470 (4th Cir. 2018).

The Supreme Court has clarified that not every factual dispute will defeat a summary judgment 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 (1986) (emphasis in original). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Id. at 248.

There is a genuine dispute as to material fact “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.; see CTB, Inc. v. Hog Slat, Inc., 954 F.3d 647, 658 (4th Cir. 2020); Variety Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d at 659; Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., 841 F.3d 199, 2014 (4th Cir. 2016); Libertarian Party of Va. v. Judd, 718 F.3d 308, 313 (4th Cir. 2013). But, “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

“A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleadings,' but rather must ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 522 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1042 (2004); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-24. And, the court must view all of the facts, including

4

reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ricci, 557 U.S. at 585-86; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587; accord Knibbs v. Momphand, 30 F.4th 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2022); Walker v. Donahoe, 3 F.4th 676, 682 (4th Cir. 2021); Hannah P. v. Coats, 916 F.3d 327, 336 (4th Cir. 2019); Variety Stores, Inc., 888 F.3d at 659; Gordon, 890 F.3d at 470; Lee v. Town of Seaboard, 863 F.3d 323, 327 (4th Cir. 2017).

But, the nonmovant “must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532, 540 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, “there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmovant.” Thompson v. Virginia, 878 F.3d 89, 97 (4th Cir. 2017) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court's “function” is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; accord Guessous v. Fairview Prop. Invs., LLC, 828 F.3d 208, 216 (4th Cir. 2016). Thus, in considering a summary judgment motion, the court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations. Brown v. Lott, 2022 WL 2093849, at *1 (4th Cir. June 10, 2022) (per curiam); Knibbs, 30 F.4th at 207, 213; Betton v. Belue, 942 F.3d 184, 190 (4th Cir. 2019); Wilson v. Prince George's Cty., 893 F.3d 213, 218-19 (4th Cir. 2018); Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 569 (4th Cir. 2015); Mercantile Peninsula Bank v. French, 499 F.3d 345, 352 (4th Cir. 2007). Therefore, in the face of conflicting evidence, such as competing affidavits, summary judgment is not appropriate, because it is the function of the factfinder to resolve factual disputes, including matters of witness credibility. See Black & Decker Corp. v. United States, 436 F.3d 431, 442 (4th Cir. 2006); Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639,

5

(4th Cir. 2002).

That said, “a party's ‘self-serving opinion . . . cannot, absent objective corroboration, defeat summary judgment.'” CTB, Inc., 954 F.3d at 658-59 (quoting Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 433 (4th Cir. 2004)). But, if testimony is based on personal knowledge or firsthand experience, it can be evidence of disputed material facts, even if it is uncorroborated and selfserving. Lovett v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 700 Fed.Appx. 209, 212 (4th Cir. 2017). Indeed, “‘a great deal of perfectly admissible testimony fits'” the “‘description'” of “‘selfserving.'” Cowgill v. First Data Technologies, Inc., 41 F.4th 370, 383 (4th Cir. 2022) (citing United States v. Skelena, 692 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir. 2012)).

On the other hand, “[u]nsupported speculation is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Felty v. Graves-Humphreys Co., 818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir. 1987); see also Reddy v. Buttar, 38 F.4th 393, 403-04 (4th Cir. 2022); CTB, Inc., 954 F.3d at 659; Harris v. Home Sales Co., 499 Fed.Appx. 285, 294 (4th Cir. 2012). “[T]o avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party's evidence must be of sufficient quantity and quality as to establish a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fanciful inferences and bald speculations of the sort no rational trier of fact would draw or engage in at trial need not be drawn or engaged in at summary judgment.” Local Union 7107 v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 124 F.3d 639, 640 (4th Cir. 1997).

As noted, defendant...