Young v. Braum's, Inc.

Decision Date22 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 5:19-cv-161-RWS-CMC,5:19-cv-161-RWS-CMC
PartiesANTHONY YOUNG AND CHELSEY YOUNG, Individually, and as Next Friend of K.Y., a Minor, Plaintiffs, v. BRAUM'S, INC. Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
ORDER

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Report of the Magistrate Judge which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action has been presented for consideration. Braum's, Inc. ("Defendant") filed objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court conducts a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability case involving personal injuries K. Y., a minor child, sustained when he caught his thumb in the pinch point of the men's restroom door when he was exiting the restroom at Defendant's premises. Anthony and Chelsey Young (parents of Minor K. Y.); Nikki Keefer (parent of Minor A. K.); and LaBresha Fulmer (parent of Minor R. J.) originally filed this action in state court against Defendant, seeking to recover damages under theories of premises liability and gross negligence as a result of injuries allegedly suffered by Minors K. Y., A. K., and R. J. from 2015 to 2019 from the pinch point of the men's restroom door at Defendant's Mt. Pleasant store. Defendant removed the case to this Court on December 3, 2019 as a result of diversity jurisdiction.

On May 19, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to sever, or in the alternative, motion for separate trials. Docket No. 12. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 to add as a plaintiff Barbara Pond, as next friend of Minor J. P.1 Docket No. 23. On November 19, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered an order granting Defendant's motion to sever and denying Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. See Docket No. 30. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' claims be severed into three separate actions, with Plaintiffs Anthony and Chelsey Young, individually and as next friend of K. Y. ("Plaintiffs"), remaining in above Cause No. 5:19cv161.

Following severance, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint in the above-referenced cause of action, asserting claims for premises defect and gross negligence. Docket No. 43. Defendant moves for summary judgment on both of Plaintiffs' claims. Regarding Plaintiffs' premises liability claims, Defendant asserts a condition on the premises did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm, Defendant did not have notice regarding the alleged condition, and Defendant did not proximately cause Plaintiffs' injuries. Additionally, Defendant contends the condition on the premises was open and obvious. Regarding Plaintiffs' claim for gross negligence, Defendant argues Defendant's actions did not involve an extreme degree of risk and Defendant did not act with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of others.

II. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 25, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a 52-page Report and Recommendation("R&R"), recommending Defendant Braum's, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. Docket No. 54. After ruling on Defendant's objections to Plaintiffs' summary judgment evidence (id. at pp. 8-16), the Magistrate Judge set forth in detail the pertinent facts. Id. at pp. 16-26.

In her discussion of the premises liability or premises defect claims, the Magistrate Judge first considered Defendant's three separate arguments as to why it did not owe a duty to Plaintiffs: (1) it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the condition prior to K. Y.'s incident; (2) the condition was open and obvious and known to Plaintiffs; and (3) the men's restroom door at the subject premises did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. The Magistrate Judge found each argument without merit.

The Magistrate Judge then considered whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the alleged dangerous condition was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injuries. Considering all of the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge found a reasonable jury could conclude that the particular door at issue was a cause-in-fact of the injury. R&R at p. 47. The Magistrate Judge further concluded a reasonable jury could conclude that the danger from the pinch point in the men's bathroom door (due to the door's configuration, self-closing feature, lack of hinge guard, and allegedly non-functioning damper) was foreseeable. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommended summary judgment be denied on Plaintiffs' premises defect claims. Id. at p. 48.

The Magistrate Judge also recommended summary judgment be denied on Plaintiffs' gross negligence claim, reasoning as follows:

After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court is not convinced that Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of gross negligence that would entitle it tojudgment as a matter of law. There is some credible evidence Defendant knew about the risk and that Defendant's actions, or lack thereof, could rise to the level of gross negligence.

Id. at p. 51.

III. OBJECTIONS

Defendant filed objections to the R&R. First, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's rulings regarding Defendant's objections to certain evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Second, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusions regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any dangerous condition involving the men's restroom door at the subject premises. Third, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusion on the issue of whether the condition was open and obvious. Fourth, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that there is legally sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that a condition on the premises presented an unreasonable risk of harm. Fifth, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue that Defendant's alleged breach proximately caused Plaintiffs' injuries. Finally, Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that summary judgment be denied as to Plaintiffs' gross negligence claim.

IV. APPLICABLE LAW

"Under Texas law, negligence consists of four essential elements: (1) a legal duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) an actual injury to the plaintiff; and (4) a showing that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury." Odom v. Kroger Texas, L.P., Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-0579-D, 2014 WL 585329, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2014) (quoting GreatPlains Trust Co. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 313 F.3d 305, 314 (5th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted in Odom)). Under the general umbrella of negligence, there are distinct species of claims. Odom, 2014 WL 585329, at *3. The first type is a premises liability claim, also known as a "premises defect" claim.2 Id.

To prevail on a premises liability claim in Texas, an invitee must show:

(1) That the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises;
(2) That the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee;
(3) That the owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and
(4) That the owner's failure to use reasonable care proximately caused the harm to the invitee.

Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983); see also CMH Homes, Inc. v. Daenen, 15 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Tex. 2000).

"In a premises liability case, as in a negligent activity case, 'the plaintiff must establish a duty owed to the plaintiff, breach of the duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach.'" Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 817, 833 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (quoting Del Lago Partners,Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762, 767 (Tex. 2010) ; also citing Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 296 (establishing the elements of premises liability under Texas law)). "Under a premises-defect theory, however, the scope of the duty is more singularly defined: the plaintiff must establish that (1) the premises owner or operator had actual or constructive knowledge of the complained-of condition; and (2) the complained-of condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm." Oncor Elec. Delivery Co., LLC v. Murillo, 449 S.W.3d 583, 592 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (citing Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523, 529 (Tex. 1997) (citing Corbin, 648 S.W.2d at 296)).

The duty owed by a premises liability defendant to a person injured on the premises depends on the legal status of the injured party—that is, whether the plaintiff was an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser. Smith v. United States, 727 F. Supp. 2d 533, 541 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (citing W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547, 550 (Tex. 2005)). An "invitee" is a person who enters the possessor's premises in response to an express or implied invitation by the possessor and for the benefit of both parties. Smith, 727 F. Supp. 2d at 541 (citing Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex.1975)). No one disputes that K. Y. was an "invitee" because he was a customer at Braum's. See Mazzola v. Lowe's Home Ctr., L.L.C., Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-00469-TH, 2020 WL 6553964, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-00469-TH, 2020 WL 6545331 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2020) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 332 (AM. LAW INST. 1965) (invitee defined)).

Under Texas law, a premises owner owes a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT