UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1167
HEIDI STROBEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W.B.W. ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, doing business as Dayton
Farmer’s Market,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. B. Waugh Crigler,
Magistrate Judge. (5:07-cv-00044-BWC)
Submitted: October 28, 2008 Decided: November 24, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Bishop Dansby, Keezletown, Virginia, for Appellant. Cathleen
Kailani Memmer, GUYNN, MEMMER & DILLON, P.C., Salem, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Heidi Strobel appeals from the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Defendant in her civil action
for tort damages related to premises liability. Strobel slipped
and fell when she was exiting the Dayton Farmer’s Market (the
Market). Defendant W.B.W. Enterprises managed the Market. The
issue in this case is whether Strobel’s evidence of causation
established a reasonable inference that a door mat caused her
fall and resulting injuries. We conclude that there exists a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the door mats in
question were defective and caused Mrs. Strobel’s fall. We
therefore vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand
for further proceedings.
Mrs. Strobel filed an action for personal injuries,
alleging that the negligence of the Defendant caused her injury.
Specifically, she alleged that she tripped over defective mats
when exiting the Market. After completion of discovery, the
Defendant moved for summary judgment. The Defendant alleged
that the mat was not defective or dangerous, the condition was
open and obvious, there was no actual or constructive notice,
there was insufficient evidence of causation, and that Strobel
was guilty of contributory negligence. The court heard oral
2
argument and granted the Defendant’s motion from the bench. 1 The
court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish
that the mats were rippled or buckled more than one-half inch or
that they were permanently rippled. The court found
insufficient evidence of causation, citing conjecture that the
mats in the photograph were the same mats involved in the
accident and that they were in a similar condition. If Strobel
had established causation, the court found there was sufficient
evidence of notice, and at least a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether she was contributorily negligent.
The non-moving party must produce “specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(e). Summary judgment should be affirmed only where there
are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The court examines the evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 2 Id.
1
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge.
2
The court held that there was sufficient evidence of
notice and an issue of material fact as to whether Strobel was
contributorily negligent. Mrs. Strobel’s brief addresses all
issues surrounding the motion for summary judgment, as does the
Appellee’s brief. However, the only appealable issue raised is
causation, based on the district court’s ruling.
3
To prove negligence in a premises liability case, the
plaintiff must first prove the existence of an unsafe or
dangerous condition on the premises. Kendrick v. Vaz, Inc., 421
S.E.2d 447, 449 (Va. 1992). Mrs. Strobel contends that the mats
were defective because they had pre-existing distortions. The
Market contends that the record is devoid of evidence of the
condition of the floor mats immediately prior to Strobel’s fall.
Assuming that the mats were defective at the time of Strobel’s
accident, she must also show that the defect in the mats caused
her to trip and fall. In Virginia, to prove a defendant’s
negligence, a plaintiff must prove “why and how the incident
happened. . . . And if the cause of the event is left to
conjecture, guess, or random judgment, the plaintiff cannot
recover.” Town of West Point v. Evans, 299 S.E.2d 349, 351 (Va.
1983).
We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether the mats were defective and whether they
caused Mrs. Strobel’s fall. The photograph of the mats shows
that the edges of the mats, in some places, were not flush with
the floor and that there were ripples across the top of the
mats. Although the district court was concerned that it could
not be categorically determined which mat may have been
involved, both mats were in a similar condition. Further, the
court seemed troubled that the mats may not have been in the
4
same condition as in the photograph as the day of the accident.
A manager, however, testified in deposition that after the
accident the mats were rolled up and placed in secure storage,
and a shopkeeper testified that the mats were in the same
condition at the time of the accident as they were portrayed in
the photograph, which showed rippling of the mat.
Finally, witness statements and deposition testimony
established that there were problems with the mats in the two
days they were placed before the accident, and the problems were
noticed by several shopkeepers in the Market. We therefore
conclude that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the
mats were defective and caused Mrs. Strobel’s fall.
We vacate the summary judgment order and remand to the
district court for further proceedings. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
5