Renita Womack v. Wal-Mart Stores
677 F. App'x 296
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Womack (Michigan resident) slipped and fell inside the entrance of a Wal‑Mart in Williamsburg, Kentucky on a rainy day and sued Wal‑Mart in the Eastern District of Michigan for premises liability.
- Womack alleged she slipped on a clear liquid (likely water) and claimed there were no warning cones; Wal‑Mart produced stills from surveillance showing an orange caution cone near where she fell.
- The district court applied Michigan law (Womack did not raise Kentucky law below) and granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment, concluding the wet entryway was an open and obvious danger and no special aspects made it unreasonably dangerous.
- Womack appealed, arguing Kentucky law should apply and asserting special aspects (e.g., allegedly only one entrance), and disputed interpretation of the surveillance stills.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, held Womack waived the choice‑of‑law argument by not raising it below, and affirmed summary judgment under Michigan premises‑liability law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law | Kentucky law should apply to the incident in Kentucky | Michigan law applies; plaintiff never raised Kentucky law below | Waived on appeal; Michigan law governs because plaintiff failed to raise Kentucky law in district court |
| Open & obvious danger | Floor condition not necessarily open & obvious (wet liquid she did not notice) | Wet entryway on rainy day is objectively open and obvious | Wet entryway is open and obvious as a matter of law under Michigan standards |
| Existence of warning/contradictory evidence | No caution cones present; dispute over surveillance stills and timing | Surveillance stills show an orange caution cone near the fall; photos control over contradictory testimony | Surveillance stills undermine plaintiff’s testimony; court may rely on the photos at summary judgment (Scott v. Harris principle) |
| Special aspects exception | Entrance was the only entrance and thus risk was unavoidable/unreasonably dangerous | No special aspects shown; photos show multiple entrances and nothing uniquely hazardous | No special aspects proved; exception in Lugo not met, summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 629 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 2001) (premises possessor need not protect invitees from open and obvious dangers; special aspects exception explained)
- Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 821 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2012) (defines special aspects that can make open and obvious risks unreasonably dangerous)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (court may rely on video evidence that blatantly contradicts a party’s version of events at summary judgment)
- Meridia Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Abbott Labs., 447 F.3d 861 (6th Cir. 2006) (argument not raised below cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Armstrong v. City of Melvindale, 432 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 2006) (waiver of challenges not raised in district court)
- Rupert v. Daggett, 695 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)