Pope v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 4:19-cv-00377

On January 23, 2017, Katherine Caraway entered the Wal‑Mart in Sand Springs, left, then returned and locked herself in the store’s family restroom; her body was discovered January 26, 2017 when an employee opened the door.
Caraway had been apprehended for shoplifting at other Wal‑Mart stores in 2014 and 2016, and on July 29, 2016 Wal‑Mart issued her a Notification of Restriction banning her from Wal‑Mart property.
Autopsy concluded death was accidental cardiac arrhythmia due to difluoroethane (air duster) toxicity; empty cans were found in her car.
Plaintiffs (mother and next of kin) sued Wal‑Mart for wrongful death; Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment.
Wal‑Mart admitted its employees were acting within the scope of employment; plaintiffs were not present at the store during the relevant times.
The central legal question was whether Wal‑Mart owed a duty to Caraway; the court found she was a trespasser and granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wal‑Mart owed a duty to protect Caraway	Caraway was a store visitor entitled to protection; Wal‑Mart had a duty to keep premises safe and check the restroom	Caraway was banned and thus a trespasser; Wal‑Mart’s duty was limited to avoiding willful/wanton injury	Court held Caraway was a trespasser; Wal‑Mart owed only duty to avoid willful/wanton injury and had no duty to unlock/search the restroom
Whether plaintiffs produced evidence of breach/proximate cause to survive summary judgment	Wal‑Mart’s failure to check/unlock restroom was negligent and a proximate cause of death	Death resulted from self‑administered inhalant use; plaintiffs produced no evidence creating a genuine dispute on breach or causation	Court found plaintiffs failed to show essential elements; summary judgment for Wal‑Mart granted

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden and nonmovant’s obligation)
Scott v. Archon Group, L.P., 191 P.3d 1207 (Okla. 2008) (premises‑liability duty categories and required proof)
Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla.) (owner duties to trespassers, licensees, and invitees)
Williamson v. Fowler Toyota, Inc., 956 P.2d 858 (Okla. 1998) (definition and treatment of trespassers)
Adler v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) (movant’s burden on summary judgment when it lacks trial burden)
Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., 449 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment factual‑inference standards)
Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789 (10th Cir. 1988) (nonmovant cannot rely on speculation to avoid summary judgment)