Deleese Allen v. Walmart Stores, L.L.C.
907 F.3d 170
5th Cir.2018Background
- Karalee Williams purchased at least ~60 cans of aerosol dust remover across nine visits to a Houston Wal‑Mart over ~27 hours and was later found dead from inhalant abuse.
- Williams displayed obvious signs of impairment during visits; store employees gave her a towel and sundress but continued to sell product.
- Williams’s mother, Deleese Allen, sued Wal‑Mart (and later individual employees and manufacturers) in Texas state court alleging negligence, negligence per se (Texas Health & Safety Code ch. 485), negligent entrustment, premises liability, negligent undertaking, and products‑liability theories; Wal‑Mart removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- The district court dismissed Allen’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), struck non‑diverse employee defendants as improperly joined, denied remand, and denied leave to amend; Allen appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Allen failed to plead a plausible duty or necessary elements for negligence (including negligence per se under Chapter 485), negligent entrustment, premises liability extension, negligent undertaking, or products‑liability against the seller; individual employees had no independent duty; amendment would be futile or untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal‑Mart owed a duty to stop selling dust remover to an impaired adult (premises/negligence) | Williams’s impairment and employees’ knowledge created a duty to prevent further sales | No legal duty under Texas law to control an adult customer’s purchase; Del Lago does not extend to these facts | No duty; premises liability claim fails |
| Whether seller/employee liability via negligent entrustment (Restatement §390) or El Chico analog applies | Seller had reason to know she was likely to self‑harm and thus should not have supplied product | Texas has not adopted §390 for sellers; El Chico’s duty limited to alcohol and superseded/limited by statute | No negligent entrustment duty; claim fails |
| Whether Texas Health & Safety Code ch. 485 supplies negligence per se or civil liability | Chapter 485 criminalizes inhalant abuse and selling to minors or providing paraphernalia; Allen says it sets a civil standard | Penal statutes are not ordinarily a basis for civil negligence per se absent legislative intent; courts rarely imply civil causes from penal code | Chapter 485 does not create negligence or negligence‑per‑se civil liability against Wal‑Mart or employees |
| Whether dismissal and denial of leave to amend/remand were erroneous | Allen sought to add employee defendants and the actual manufacturer; argued she had receipts/IDs and recently discovered identities | Defendants argued joinder was improper (to defeat diversity), amendment was dilatory or futile, and employees owed no viable claim | Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of remand and leave to amend; joinder improper and amendment futile or untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (Fifth Circuit standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322 (accept well‑pleaded facts at pleading stage)
- El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. 1987) (duty regarding sale of alcohol to intoxicated patrons)
- Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith, 307 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010) (limited duty when proprietor has actual, direct knowledge of imminent assaultive conduct)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (duty may arise from voluntary undertaking; elements for negligent undertaking)
- Smallwood v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 385 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) (improper joinder analysis)
- Hensgens v. Deere & Co., 833 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1987) (factors for allowing amendment that would add non‑diverse defendants)