Nuri Bryant v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation
21-10596
| 11th Cir. | Oct 22, 2021Background
- In April 2017 Nuri Bryant was struck by an automatic sliding door entering a Burlington store and injured his shoulder; in-store surveillance recorded the event.
- Video shows the door beginning to close as Bryant entered, then immediately reopening on contact; other patrons subsequently used the doors without incident.
- Bryant told a Burlington employee; Burlington’s insurer later told Bryant the motion sensor had been “thrown off.”
- Bryant sued Burlington (removed to federal court). Burlington moved for summary judgment, submitting the surveillance video and an affidavit about retained footage; Burlington said doors were serviced as needed and routinely observed/checked by employees.
- Bryant pointed to prior maintenance incidents (2014–2016) and the insurer’s comment, and argued inspections were inadequate and industry standards were not followed.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Burlington, finding no evidence the door malfunctioned or that Burlington had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a dangerous/defective condition | The door malfunctioned and struck Bryant | Surveillance and evidence show door operated as intended; no malfunction shown | No genuine dispute; plaintiff offered no evidence of defect beyond injury → SJ proper |
| Insurer’s statement that the sensor was “thrown off” | That statement is an admission that the door malfunctioned | The statement does not prove a malfunction; mechanical devices can injure absent negligence | Not an admission of malfunction sufficient to create triable issue |
| Prior maintenance records/notice (actual knowledge) | Prior malfunctions (2014–2016) put Burlington on notice | Prior incidents did not show the outer automatic door ever struck anyone or indicate current dangerous condition | Prior records did not establish Burlington’s knowledge; no evidence Burlington knew of a dangerous condition |
| Inspection program adequacy / constructive knowledge | Burlington’s daily checks were insufficient; industry standards not followed | Burlington had a reasonable inspection regimen and carried it out, negating constructive knowledge | Plaintiff waived reliance on industry standards; record shows reasonable inspections → no inference of constructive knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review on appeal)
- Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (issues abandoned if raised only in certain brief sections)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (do not consider arguments raised first in a reply brief)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (generally will not consider issues not presented to the district court)
- Hayes v. SNS P’ship, LP, 756 S.E.2d 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014) (plaintiff must prove dangerous condition and actual or constructive knowledge)
- Pylant v. Samuels, Inc., 585 S.E.2d 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (constructive knowledge may be inferred from inadequate inspection procedures)
- Sparks v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 478 S.E.2d 923 (Ga. 1996) (mechanical devices may cause injury absent negligence; plaintiff must show at least slight negligence to create triable issue)