Linares v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 12-60308-CIV-MARRA/BRANNON |
| Parties | ENRIQUE LINARES, Plaintiff, v. THE HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
This cause is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 44) and Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument (DE 53). The Court has carefully considered the Motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
The facts, as culled from affidavits, exhibits, depositions, answers, answers to interrogatories and reasonably inferred therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are as follows:
This action stems from an incident occurring on January 28, 2011 at a Home Depot store located at 11001 Pines Boulevard in Pembroke Pines, Florida. (Compl. ¶ 4, DE 5-3.)
Plaintiff Enrique Linares ("Plaintiff") and Ramon Clemente went to Home Depot to purchase materials to insulate a shed in Plaintiff's backyard. (Pl. Dep. 41-43, DE 45-6; Clemente Dep. 18, DE 45-7.) Once inside, Plaintiff obtained a flat cart and put 4 to 6 sheets of insulation on the cart. He also added wooden sticks and screws. (Pl. Dep. 47-51.) As Plaintiff pulled the cart, he became unsteady, tried to balance himself, when he suddenly heard both knees pop. (PlDep. 47-57.)
At the time of the fall, Mr. Clemente was outside in the parking lot. Plaintiff called him and told him that he fell. Mr. Clemente went inside and saw Plaintiff lying on the floor. An employee of Home Depot sat Plaintiff up and asked Mr. Clemente to sign the customer incident report. (Clemente Dep. 27-29.) The report, which was completed by Home Depot, stated the following: "Pulling flat cart and both legs gave out and fell down (both knees gave out) (no chest pain or didn't pass out)." (Incident Report, DE 45-1.)1 Plaintiff told Mr. Clemente that he "fell"and later, after being seen at the hospital, Plaintiff said that he "slipped."2 (Clemente Dep. 39, 55-56.) Plaintiff told employees at Home Depot that he fell. (Pl. Dep. 62.) He also may have told them that his legs gave out. (Pl. Dep. 65, 87.) While at the hospital, Mr. Clemente took a picture of Plaintiff's shoes and his jacket, which had dirt and debris on them. (Clemente Dep. 36-40.)
Barbara Glaid, a Home Depot employee who responded to the scene, testified that she saw nothing on the floor when she arrived, but she did not touch the floor. (Glaid Dep. 33-34, 50, DE 49-2.) She also stated that Plaintiff motioned to his knees. (Glaid Dep. 27.). Home Depot sweeps the floors "all day," but only when employees see something on the ground. (Glaid Dep.34.) She has never seen shavings from insulation on the ground.3 (Glaid Dep. 40.) The store manager, Osvaldo Ibarra, stated that he arrived at the scene after Plaintiff fell and was told Plaintiff stated that his legs gave out while he was pulling a cart and he had fallen to the floor. (Ibarra Aff. ¶ 7, DE 45-1.) Before leaving the area, he noticed that the floor was clean and dry. (Ibarra Aff. ¶ 7.)
Right after the fall, Plaintiff was in pain and was not able to answer a lot of questions. (Pl. Dep. 61-63.) Plaintiff told fire rescue that his knees gave out and that he fell. (Pl. Dep. 87.) Plaintiff also testified that he told the hospital staff that he was pulling a cart and his knees gave out. (Pl. Dep. 87.) Immediately after his fall, Plaintiff testified that a Home Depot manager told an employee to clean the floor right now. (Pl. Dep. 60.) Neither Plaintiff nor Mr. Clemente saw anyone sweep the floor. (Pl. Dep. 72; Clemente Dep. 41.)
When asked about what he saw on the floor, Plaintiff testified as follows:
When asked if he saw any dust on the floor, Mr. Clemente stated that the floor was a lightgrey, which made it difficult to see anything, including dust. He did state that, despite wearing rubber soled shoes, his feet moved easily across the floor and "[y]ou can tell that there's like a film of dust over it." (Clemente Dep. 42-44, 57.) At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was wearing tennis shoes with a rubber sole. (Pl. Dep. 97.) The floor at Home Depot is concrete. It is shiny and there is a sheen, but there is no coating on the floor.5 (Glaid Dep. 15-16.)
Defendant moves for summary judgment on several grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is speculating that he slipped on construction dust. Second, Defendant claims that Plaintiff's theory of the case requires an impermissible stacking of inferences. Lastly, Defendant states that there is no evidence to establish that Home Depot created the condition on the floor or had actual or constructive notice of the condition.
The Court may grant summary judgment "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate theabsence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. To discharge this burden, the movant must point out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325.
After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(a), the burden of production shifts and the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Electronic Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record . . . or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) and (B).
Essentially, so long as the non-moving party has had an ample opportunity to conduct discovery, it must come forward with affirmative evidence to support its claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. "A mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non-moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, then summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50.
To sustain a cause of action for negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises in areasonably safe condition; (2) the defendant breached that duty and (3) the defendant's breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and resulting damages. Rupp v. Bryant, 417 So.2d 658, 668 n. 27 (Fla.1982); Lake Parker Mall,...
To continue reading
Request your trial