United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
BOBBY BARTLETT, ET AL.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., ET AL.
PEREZ-MONTES, MAG. JUDGE
DRELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
the court is an unopposed motion for summary judgment filed by
defendant, Amigo Mobility International, Inc.
("Amigo"), which seeks dismissal of all claims
against it. For the reasons expressed below, the court finds
Amigo's motion should be GRANTED.
matter arises out of a fall Bobby Bartlett sustained on
January 6, 2016, while operating a mobile cart ("cart
#UL-04297") at Alexandria Walmart Supercenter on N. Mall
Drive, Alexandria, Louisiana. Plaintiffs are the children and
survivors of Bobby Bartlett, and they contend the accident
occurred as a result of cart #UL-04297 tipping over as a
result of missing stabilization wheels, also known as
initially sued Amigo alleging it was the manufacturer of cart
#UL-04297 and responsible for maintenance prior to the
accident. In an amended complaint (Doc. 17), plaintiffs named
the proper manufacturer, leaving only the allegation that
Amigo negligently maintained/repaired cart #UL-04297.
contracted with Amigo to perform repairs on mobile carts
located at Alexandria Walmart Supercenter, and Amigo
subcontracted the repair work to RoadRunner Kart Services
("RoadRunner"). In July 2015, Alexandria Walmart
Supercenter submitted several carts, including cart
#UL-04297, for service and/or repair. The only complaint
lodged regarding cart #UL-04297 was that it would not hold a
charge. At no time prior to January 6, 2016, did Walmart
submit cart #UL-04297 to Amigo or RoadRunner for repairs
related to stabilization casters.
Hendon of RoadRunner performed the repairs to #UL-04297. Mr.
Hendon personally ensured the cart was repaired and its
ability to take a charge was restored. Additionally, as part
of RoadRunner's practice, he checked stabilizing casters,
the seat and frame for problems. He "personally checked
and confirmed that the casters on this particular cart were
in place and functioning at the time of the repair regarding
its failure to hold a charge. This is signified by the [check
mark] on [the repair record attached as] exhibit A" to
his affidavit. Doc. 52-2, p.l. All repairs were completed by
August 3, 2015, and Walmart placed cart #UL-04297 back into
service, that same month. No further requests for repairs of
cart #UL-04297, of any type, were requested between August 3,
2015 and January 6, 2016.
Law and Analysis
"shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute of material fact is genuine if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anders on v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). We consider
"all evidence in the light most favorable to the party
resisting the motion." Seacor Holdings, Inc. v.
Commonwealth Ins. Co., 635 F.3d 680
(5thCir.2011)(internal citations omitted). It is
important to note that the standard for summary judgment is
two-fold: (1) there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact, and (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
movant has the burden of pointing to evidence proving there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, or the absence
of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. The
burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with
evidence which demonstrates the essential elements of his
claim. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 250 (1986). The nonmoving party must establish the
existence of a genuine dispute of material fact for trial by
showing the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable
to him, is sufficient to enable a reasonable jury to render a
verdict in his favor. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 325 (1986); Duffy v. Leading Edge Products,
Inc., 44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1995). A
party whose claims are challenged by a motion for summary
judgment may not rest on the allegations of the complaint and
must articulate specific factual allegations which meet his
burden of proof. Id. "Conclusory allegations
unsupported by concrete and particular facts will not prevent
an award of summary judgment." Duffy, 44 F.2d
at 312, citing Anderson v Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at
asserts in its motion and substantiates with the affidavit of
Mr. Hendon that cart #UL-04297 was submitted by Walmart for
repair for failure to take a charge in July 2015. The issue
was resolved, and pursuant to policy, the stabilizing casters
were inspected. Mr. Hendon noted the casters were in place
and in proper working order; thus, at the time of cart
#UL-04297's return to Walmart in August 2015, the
stabilizing casters were in place. Moreover, Amigo was not
contacted to repair or maintain cart #UL-04297 at any time
between August 2016 and January 2016.
plaintiffs do not oppose the motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 62), and, thus do not present any argument or evidence
to contradict Amigo's statements and/or evidence, there
is no dispute of material fact. The stabilizing casters were
in place and in proper working order at the time RoadRunner,
on behalf of Amigo, last had possession or control of cart
#UL-04297. Accordingly, it cannot be held liable for injuries
sustained by Mr. Bartlett on January 6, 2016.