Myers v. Walmart Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 October 2022
• Docket Number: 3:21-cv-02090-BT
• Parties: JUANITA MYERS, Plaintiff, v. WALMART INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

JUANITA MYERS, Plaintiff,
v.
WALMART INC., Defendant.

No. 3:21-cv-02090-BT

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

October 26, 2022

MEMORANDUM ORDER

REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Walmart Inc. has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this removed premises liability case, in which it argues “the only issue to be decided by the Court” is whether Plaintiff Juanita Myers's alleged injuries were caused by a “hidden or concealed” condition of which Walmart had actual or constructive knowledge.^[1] Mot. 4-5 (ECF No. 25). The summary judgment evidence-when viewed favorably to Myers-is sufficient to raise a genuine fact issue as to (i) whether Walmart knew of the puddle on the floor in an aisle at one of its Dallas stores on November 10, 2019, that allegedly caused Myers to slip and fall, injuring her shoulder and (ii) whether that puddle posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Therefore, the Court DENIES Walmart's Motion for Summary Judgment. If the

1

parties do not settle their dispute at mediation on or before January 6, 2023, they will try this case to a jury beginning February 6, 2023. Order (ECF No. 28).

I.

Summary judgment is proper when “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). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue for trial. Duffy v. Leading Edge Prods., Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The movant's burden can be satisfied by demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case, which the nonmovant bears the burden of proving at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must show that summary judgment is improper. Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 276 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). The parties may satisfy their respective burdens “by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence.” Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir. 1992) (first citing Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, 939 F.2d 1257, 1263 (5th Cir. 1991); and then citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment motion. Rosado v. Deters, 5 F.3d 119, 123 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 784 F.2d 577, 578 (5th Cir. 1986)). The Court cannot make a credibility determination in light of conflicting evidence or competing inferences. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

2

If there appears to be some support for disputed allegations, such that “reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the evidence,” the Court must deny the motion. Id. at 250.

II.

Texas law applies to removed lawsuits-like this one-asserting “ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability claims.” Austin v. Kroger Tex. L.P., 746 F.3d 191, 195-96 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). To succeed on her premises liability claim under Texas law, Myers must prove that: (1) the property owner- Walmart-had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition causing the injury; (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) Walmart failed to take reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) Walmart's failure to use reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk was the proximate cause of Myers's injuries. Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249, 251-52 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam) (citing CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. 2000)). Walmart argues that Myers lacks sufficient evidence to prove her case. But Myers has adduced sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment.

Specifically, Myers testified at her deposition that she slipped on a puddle of “clear, white liquid” on the floor, Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. App. 6 (ECF No. 26), and she submitted “a photo of the scene,” which depicts a clear, wet spot on a white tile floor. Id. at 11. (ECF No. 31). The puddle appeared in a well-lit, open aisle in a highly trafficked area referred to as “action alley.” Carter Dep. 16:3-12. Myers further testified that, after she fell, she overheard a Walmart employee state, “I thought

3

they got that up.” Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. App. 8, 9. Myers points to deposition testimony from a Walmart employee that a puddle like the one Myers claims caused her fall would be considered dangerous. Carter Dep 15:2-17; Smith Dep. 12:23-25. Indeed, the Walmart employee explained that if she had seen this puddle, protocol requires her to stand over the puddle until she can clean it. Carter Dep...