Paul N. Smith and Bernice Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 944, 1999 WL 30228, 167 F.3d 286 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Georgia law, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can establish the standard of care for a negligence per se claim, even if the ADA does not provide a private right of action for damages. Furthermore, the summary judgment standard from Robinson v. Kroger Co., which makes it more difficult for defendants to win before trial, applies to all premises liability cases, not just slip-and-fall incidents.
Facts:
- Mrs. Smith, a 74-year-old disabled woman who required a walker, entered a Wal-Mart store with her husband.
- While near the store's entrance, Mrs. Smith felt an urgent need to use the restroom.
- The closest restroom, near the entrance, was not handicapped-accessible; it lacked grab bars and the stall was too narrow to accommodate her walker.
- An ADA-compliant, handicapped-accessible restroom existed at the rear of the store, approximately 140 yards from the front entrance.
- There were no signs at or near the front restroom directing disabled patrons to the accessible restroom at the rear, and Mrs. Smith was unaware of its existence.
- Mrs. Smith left her walker outside the stall, entered, and lost her balance while rising from the toilet.
- As she fell, she reached for support but found none; the toilet paper dispenser was loose and the door latch was broken or missing.
- Mrs. Smith fell forward, struck the stall door, and fell out into the main restroom area, breaking her neck and becoming a quadriplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- The Smiths filed a diversity suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a Tennessee state court of first instance.
- Wal-Mart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, dismissing all of the Smiths' claims.
- The Smiths filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court denied.
- The Smiths (appellants) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, where Wal-Mart was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Georgia law, does a business's failure to install safety features like grab bars in a non-handicapped-accessible restroom constitute negligence when an ADA-compliant restroom is available elsewhere in the store, and can an alleged violation of the ADA form the basis for a negligence per se claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Godbold, J.
Yes. A business's failure to install safety features can constitute common law negligence, and an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can establish negligence per se under state law, even if the ADA itself does not provide a private damages remedy. The court reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the safety of the front restroom, Wal-Mart's knowledge of the hazard, and Mrs. Smith's exercise of ordinary care. A jury could find that Wal-Mart's failure to install grab bars, provide an adequately sized stall, or post signs directing patrons to the accessible restroom constituted a breach of its duty to keep the premises safe. Crucially, the court predicted that the Georgia Supreme Court would allow an ADA violation to serve as the standard of care for a negligence per se claim under Ga. Code Ann. § 51-1-6. The court also held that the landmark case Robinson v. Kroger Co., which shifted the summary judgment burden to defendants in premises liability cases, was not limited to slip-and-fall incidents and applied here.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Guy, J.
No. A business's failure to equip a non-handicapped-accessible restroom with safety features is not negligence when a compliant facility is provided elsewhere. The dissenting judge agreed with the district court's conclusion that the restroom was 'indisputably safe' for its intended purpose and that the lack of grab bars in a non-accessible stall is not a defect. The dissent argued that Wal-Mart was not legally obligated to make every restroom handicapped-accessible, and the location of the compliant restroom was reasonable as a matter of law. Therefore, there was no hazard created by Wal-Mart, making the extended analysis of the plaintiff's duty of care under Robinson v. Kroger Co. irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the potential for premises liability in two ways. First, it establishes that federal statutes like the ADA, which lack a private damages remedy, can be 'incorporated' into state tort law to set the standard of care for negligence per se claims, creating a path to monetary damages where Congress provided none. Second, by explicitly extending the Robinson v. Kroger Co. standard beyond slip-and-fall cases, the court made it substantially more difficult for defendants in all types of Georgia premises liability actions to obtain summary judgment. This ruling requires property owners to consider the foreseeable use of their facilities by disabled persons even in non-designated areas and increases the likelihood that negligence claims will be decided by a jury rather than a judge.
Unlock the full brief for Paul N. Smith and Bernice Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.