885 F.3d 1085
7th Cir.2018Background
- Robin Austin slipped and fell inside a Walgreens in Hebron, Indiana on a snowy day, sustaining a broken kneecap; she testified her right foot hit “something wet.”
- Bystanders and the assistant store manager testified they did not see any water on the floor before the fall; Austin’s friend arrived ~7 minutes later and photographed puddles near the area.
- Paramedics’ and the treating doctor’s notes recorded Austin’s statements that she slipped on water; the magistrate judge struck those statements as hearsay.
- Walgreens removed the state-court complaint to federal court (diversity) and moved for summary judgment before a magistrate judge; the magistrate granted both the motion to strike and summary judgment.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment, concluding Austin failed to show Walgreen’s actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition and thus failed to prove breach causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walgreens had knowledge (actual or constructive) of a hazardous wet condition prior to the fall | Austin argued the presence of water (her statement and photos taken minutes later) shows a hazardous condition and that store management knew snow could be tracked in, implying knowledge | Walgreens pointed to lack of any employee report or observation of water before the fall and no evidence of how long water had been present | Held: No evidence of actual or constructive knowledge; plaintiff failed to show Walgreens had opportunity to discover and remedy the hazard, so no breach proved |
| Whether hearsay statements to paramedics/doctor could be admitted to show the floor condition | Austin relied on her out-of-court statements to first responders and doctor to prove the floor was wet | Walgreens moved to strike those statements as inadmissible hearsay | Held: Magistrate struck the statements, but appellate court did not need to decide hearsay issue because summary judgment was appropriate regardless of floor condition |
| Whether the existence of a hazardous condition alone suffices for liability | Austin suggested evidence of wetness and manager’s awareness of tracking could establish liability | Walgreens argued possible hazards do not show actual knowledge at the relevant time; mere possibility is insufficient | Held: The mere possibility that hazards occur does not impute actual knowledge; without evidence the hazard existed long enough to be discovered, summary judgment proper |
| Whether federal summary judgment standards differ from Indiana's such that state cases allowing trial are controlling | Austin relied on Indiana precedent where plaintiffs avoided summary judgment | Walgreens noted federal procedure differs | Held: Federal summary judgment practice controls in diversity cases; defendant need only point to absence of evidence on an element, so some Indiana cases were inapposite |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant can obtain summary judgment by pointing to absence of evidence on an essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment tests whether genuine issue for trial exists; court does not weigh evidence)
- Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 770 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2014) (construe facts and inferences in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law)
- Schulz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (invitee status and requirement of actual or constructive knowledge for owner liability)
- Barsz v. Max Shapiro, Inc., 600 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (storeowner not strictly liable; need proof of knowledge or time to discover foreign substance)
- Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship, 952 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (elements of negligence and duty owed to business invitees)