Summary
This Fifth Circuit opinion affirms a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a retail store operator in a premises liability action arising from a customer's fall on a soft drink display stackbase. The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant breached its duty to warn or had constructive knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition. Additionally, the appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence, finding no proof that the defendant acted with intent to deprive the plaintiff of the information.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the premises‑liability claim.
- Whether the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's Rule 37(e) motion for sanctions for spoliation.
Holdings
- The district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing a breach of the duty to warn and no genuine dispute of material fact exists.
- The district court's denial of the sanctions motion is affirmed because the plaintiff offered no evidence of intent to destroy evidence, and the requested jury instruction was moot after summary judgment.
Key quotations
“All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, but the nonmoving party cannot defeat summary judgment with conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of evidence.” (319)
“Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies when “electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it.”” (713)
Factual background
Karen Orr tripped on a soft‑drink stackbase display that had been lowered to waist height in a Dollar General store in Ackerman, Mississippi, and fell. After Orr's death, her estate sued Dolgencorp for premises‑liability negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. The plaintiff sought video footage, daily planner data, and safety‑check records, which the defendant failed to produce.
Procedural history
The district court entered summary judgment for Dolgencorp on all claims and denied Keister's motion for sanctions. Keister appealed, arguing error in granting summary judgment on the premises‑liability claim and error in denying the Rule 37(e) sanctions motion.