Miller v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., 7:16-cv-00513

Plaintiff Ester Miller sued Wal‑Mart after allegedly slipping on a brochure and injuring herself in a Weslaco, Texas store.
Miller filed in state court on July 28, 2016; Wal‑Mart removed the case to federal court.
Miller asserted a premises‑liability (negligence) claim against Wal‑Mart.
Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment arguing Miller has no evidence Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the brochure.
Miller did not respond to the summary‑judgment motion or produce evidence opposing it.
The court granted Wal‑Mart’s motion, finding no genuine issue on the element of knowledge and entering judgment for the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether owner/operator had actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous condition	Miller asserts she slipped on a brochure but offered no evidence Wal‑Mart knew or should have known about it	Wal‑Mart contends there is no evidence it knew or should have known of the brochure; burden shifts to Miller at summary judgment	Court held Miller produced no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge; summary judgment for Wal‑Mart

Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Grp., 482 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007) (defines materiality for summary judgment)
Fordoche, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 463 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2006) (defines genuine dispute for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (only disputes over material facts preclude summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may shift burden by pointing to absence of evidence)
Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 871 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary‑judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 968 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1998) (elements required to prove slip‑and‑fall premises liability)