Michael Oien v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.Michael Oien v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Appeal from United States District Court fоr the District of Minnesota
Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Oien commenced this negligence and product liability action against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot“) and Stanley Access Technologies, LLC (“Stanley“), allеging he was injured by an automatic sliding door while walking out of a Home Depot retail store. Oien appeals the district court‘s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In April 2020, Oien loaded the purchases he made at a Home Depot store in Maplewood, Minnesota, on two flat carts. A Home Depot employee assisted Oien by pushing one of the carts out of the store while Oien followed, pushing the other. The exit doors automatically opened for the Home Depot employee and then closed while Oien was exiting the store, tearing Oien‘s right rotator cuff and causing other injuries. Oien alleged his injuries were caused by the door prematurely closing. The doors at issue were manufactured, installed, and serviced by Stanley.
Oien commenced this action in state court in Minnesota, which defendants removed to federal court. In his complaint, Oien alleged a negligence claim against Home Depot and claims of strict product liability, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties against Stanley. After disсovery had closed and summary judgment briefing was completed, the only expert evidence introduced into the record was a report submitted by defense counsel, which opined the doors were nоt defective or in an unsafe condition at the time of the incident.
The district court granted summary
On appeal, Oien asserts the district court erred in three ways: (1) when it found no breach of the standard of care, despite deposition testimony from Home Depot‘s corporate designee regarding inadequate inspections and safety testing; (2) when it decided there was no genuine issue of material fact as tо whether the doors closed prematurely; and (3) when it incorrectly applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
II. DISCUSSION
In this diversity action, we review de novo the district court‘s application of state law, its conclusions of law, and
In his opening brief (or reply brief), Oien did not specify any alleged errors by the district court regarding the court‘s analysis of his claims against Stanley. Oien has waived any arguments regarding the dismissal of his claims against Stanley. See Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812, 819 n.4 (8th Cir. 2021) (declining to consider issues not raised in the appellants’ opening brief).
Turning to the claims against Home Depot, Oien contends summary judgment was inappropriate because there is a genuine dispute among the parties regarding whether (1) the doors closed prematurely, and (2) Home Depot breached its duty of care to reasonably inspect the рremises and remedy or warn of a dangerous condition. To establish a negligence claim, four elements must be shown: (1) the existence of a duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) injury. Bjerke v. Johnson, 742 N.W.2d 660, 664 (Minn. 2007). Oien‘s negligence claim fails at the second element. Summary judgment in favor of a defendant is appropriate “when the record reflects a complete lack of proof” on any element. Senogles v. Carlson, 902 N.W.2d 38, 42 (Minn. 2017) (citation omitted).
A business‘s duty to its customers is well settled in Minnesota. Property owners have a duty to keep and maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition. Wolvert v. Gustafson, 146 N.W.2d 172, 173 (Minn. 1966); see Bonniwell v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 135 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 1965) (noting reasonable inspection is a duty incident to the maintenance of the premises). The duty embodies the concept of reasonableness and does not obligate a business to be “an insurer of the safety of business invitees.” Wolvert, 146 N.W.2d at 173; see Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc., 132 N.W.2d 745, 748 (Minn. 1965) (stating a shоpkeeper “owes his customers ordinary care“). If a reasonable inspection would not reveal a dangerous condition, the owner is not liable under the theory of negligence for any рhysical injury caused by the dangerous condition. Olmanson v. LeSueur Cnty., 693 N.W.2d 876, 881 (Minn. 2005).
To survive summary judgment, Oien was required to submit evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating Home Depot either caused a dangerоus condition on its premises, or knew, or should have known, that the condition existed. Norman, 132 N.W.2d at 749. Oien offered no evidence that Home Depot caused the alleged dangerous condition or that it had actual knowledge of the existence of the alleged dangerous condition. Instead, he argued that Home Depot should have known of the existence of the problem with the automatic doors. But Oien did nоt retain an expert. Nor did he offer evidence demonstrating that Home
Under Minnesota law, “[n]egligence must be predicated on what should have been reasonably anticipated and not merely on what happened.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Evanski, 22 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Minn. 1946)). A business‘s “duty to keep premises reasonably safe for customers is to guard, not against all possible consequences, but only against those which are reasonably to be anticipated in the normal course of events.” Id. Oien‘s assertion of the “mere occurrence” of an accident is insufficient to establish Home Depot breached its duty to keеp its store reasonably safe. See Bisher v. Homart Dev. Co., 328 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Minn. 1983) (determining plaintiff failed to present competent evidence to support a negligence claim after tripping and falling into a planter in a shoрping mall when the planter was in plain view, obvious in its presence, had presented no prior issues for the heavy customer traffic that existed since 1977); Pape v. Macks, LLC, No. A10-1417, 2011 WL 1466433, *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2011) (unpublished) (requiring the plaintiff, who was injured when a glass shower door in a hotel room fell and struck his foot, to offer some evidence that an inspection of the door would have revealed the alleged defect).
Because Oien did nоt submit any evidence indicating the automatic sliding doors were unsafe or an inspection of the doors would have revealed the alleged dangerous condition, Home Depot is entitled to summary judgmеnt on Oien‘s negligence claim. See Hess v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 898 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 2018) (Once the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the other side must identify specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial beyond showing “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” (citations omitted)).
Further, the facts here do not warrant application of res ipsa loquitur. To apply the doctrine, a plaintiff must show that the accident was (1) of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in thе absence of negligence; (2) caused by an instrument within the defendant‘s exclusive control; and (3) not due to plaintiff‘s conduct. Staub as Trustee of Weeks v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC, 964 N.W.2d 613, 636 n.12 (Minn. 2021). At the summary judgment stage, Oien is not required to definitively establish each element but must pоint to “enough evidence that the three conditions exist so as to make it a jury question as to whether they exist or not.” Stearns v. Plucinski, 482 N.W.2d 496, n.2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
Oien testified during his deposition that he “walked into the door” and offered no evidence that there was a defect or other unsafe condition that caused the doors to close prematurely on him. While an automatic sliding door does not ordinarily close while someone is pаssing through it, Oien produced no evidence, other than his mere assertions, that a door
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court‘s decision granting summary judgment in favor of Home Depot.