Turner v. Menard, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO: 2:12-CV-490 |
| Parties | GAIL TURNER, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., d/b/a MENARDS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant, Menard, Inc. d/b/a Menards ("Menards") on June 9, 2015. (DE #33). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter judgment in favor of Defendant, Menard, Inc. d/b/a Menards and close this case.
Plaintiff, Gail Turner ("Turner"), was a customer at a Menards store located at 1000 U.S. Highway 41 in Schererville, Indiana. Turner alleges that she slipped and fell inside the store and suffered injuries as a result of her fall. On October 5, 2012, Turner filed a complaint against Menards in Indiana state court alleging that Menards was negligent in violation of Indiana law. Thereafter, the action was removed to federal court.
On June 9, 2015, Menards filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Turner's claim must fail because she cannot demonstrate that Menards had either actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition prior to her fall, or that the condition involved an unreasonable risk of harm. On July 21, 2015, Turner filed her response to Menards motion for summary judgment. On August 14, 2015, Menards filed its reply brief. This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
Summary judgment must be granted 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 genuine dispute of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. To determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists, the Court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. See Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). However, "a court may not make credibility determinations, weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts; these are jobs for a factfinder." Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely on allegations in his own pleading but rather must "marshal and present the court with the evidence [he] contends will prove [his] case." Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). "[I]nferences relying on mere speculation or conjecture will not suffice." Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). If the non-moving party fails to establish the existence of an essential element on which he bears the burden of proof at trial, summary judgment is proper. See Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 2006).
On September 24, 2011, Turner entered the Menards store located in Schererville, Indiana, around 2:00 pm. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35- 2 at 3). Turner went to the store to purchase a door handle lock. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35-2 at 3-4).
Turner entered the store through the exit doors, near the checkout area. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35-2 at 5-6). She began walking down an aisle with bags of salt pellets stacked along the side for display. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35-2 at 6). As she walked, Turner was not looking at the ground. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35-2 at 7). Turner neared the end of the salt pellet display when she slipped and fell. (Turner Answers to Interrogatories, D.E. #35-3 at 2). Turner states that she did not recall feeling anything under her feet as she was walking or as she was falling. (Turner Dep., D.E. #35-2 at 7-8). However, after the fall, Turner noticed salt pellets on the floor in the area. (Turner Answers to Interrogatories, D.E. #35-3 at 2).
Turner does not know how the salt came to be present on the floor. (Turner Answers to Interrogatories, D.E. #35-3 at 3). Prior to Turner's fall, no agent or employee of Menards was made aware that there were salt pellets or any other substance on the floor where Turner fell. (Menards Answers to Interrogatories, D.E. #35-4 at 2-3).
Turner's fall was captured by a Menards surveillance camera. (Menards Answers to Interrogatories, D.E. #35-4, p. 2). The surveillance video shows the area of Turner's fall, beginning at 14:02:56 (CST) on September 24, 2011, and concluding at 15:03:47 (CST) on the same date. (Menards Surveillance Video, D.E. #35-5). Prior to Turner entering the store, from 14:02:56 (CST) through 14:33:25, several customers walk through the area where Turner fell. (Id.). The video does not depict any of these customers falling or slipping or anyone manipulating the stacks of salt pellets. (Id.).
At approximately 14:31:25 on the video surveillance camera, a customer in a red shirt appears and begins to load bags of salt into his cart. (Id.). The customer finishes loading bags of salt into his cart at approximately 14:33:03 and moves towards the checkout area. (Id.). Turner enters the store at approximately 14:33:37 and walks towards the rear of the aisle. (Id.). As Turner approached the area where the customer in the red shirt had been loading bags of salt, at approximately 14:33:44, the customer in the red shirt begins to move toward Turner, gesturing. (Id.) Turner falls at approximately 14:33:48. (Id.).
Immediately after Turner's fall, the customer in the red shirt leaves the checkout line and places his cart in front of the area where he was loading salt and where Turner fell. (Id.). He then leaves the view of the surveillance camera. (Id.). At approximately 14:34:28, the red-shirted customer reappears and returns to his cart. (Id.). At 14:36:43, a Menards employee appears with a broom and dustpan. (Id.).
The surveillance footage depicts three cashiers within several feet of the area where Turner fell. (Id.). During the time in question, at least thirteen Menards employees are observed in the footage nearby the location where Turner fell. (Id.).
Under Indiana law,2 a plaintiff asserting a claim of negligence must prove that a duty was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, that the duty was breached, and that the breach proximately caused plaintiff to suffer an injury. Wabash Cnty. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, Inc. v. Thompson, 975 N.E.2d 362, 365 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736, 738 (Ind. 2004)). "[N]egligence cannot be inferred from the mere fact of an accident" nor may it "be established through inferential speculation alone." Hale v. Cmty. Hosp. Of Indianapolis, Inc., 567 N.E.2d 842, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991); see also Miller v. Monsanto Co., 626 N.E.2d 538, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (). Because negligence cases are highly fact sensitive, it is rare that summary judgment is appropriate. Thompson, 975 N.E.2d at 365 (citing Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 387 (Ind. 2004)). "Nevertheless, a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the undisputed material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's claim." Id. (citing Rhodes, 805 N.E.2d at 385).
While an invitee3 is on the premises, a landowner owes that person a "duty to exercise reasonable care for the invitee's protection." Henderson v. Reid Hosp. and Healthcare Servs., 17 N.E.3d 311, 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). That duty is breached if the landowner:
Id. at 315-16 (citing Bell v. Grandville Coop., Inc., 950 N.E.2d 747, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 (1965))). The plaintiff carries the burden of proving each of these elements. Hi-Speed Auto Wash, Inc. v. Simeri, 346 N.E.2d 607, 608 (Ind. App. 1976); see also Robinson v. Walmart Stores East, LP, 2009 WL 127029, at *4 (S.D.Ind. Jan. 20, 2009).
Under Indiana law, "an invitor is not the insurer of the invitee's safety, and before liability may be imposed on the invitor, it must have actual or constructive knowledge of the danger." Schulz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). Menards asserts that Turner's claim fails because she cannot demonstrate that Menards had either actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged salt on the floor. Turner concedes that she has no evidence that Menards had actual knowledge of salt pellets, but contends that Menards did have constructive knowledge of the salt pellets on the floor. More specifically, Turner asserts that "there is an abundance of evidence from which the jury could infer that the Defendant should have known of the presence of salt." (DE #40 at 4, emphasis in original).
There is constructive knowledge when a condition "has existed for such a length of time and under such circumstances that it would have been discovered in time to have prevented injury if the storekeeper, his agents or employees had used ordinary care." Schulz, 963 N.E.2d at 1144 (citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Blaylock, 591 N.E.2d 624, 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)). In Schulz, the designated evidence showed that the Plaintiff slipped on liquid at the back of the store. Schulz, 963...
To continue reading
Request your trial