Smith v. Sears Roebuck & Co ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-30743
    Summary Calendar
    ALISHA SMITH, ET AL.,
    Plaintiffs,
    ALISHA SMITH,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    SEARS ROEBUCK & CO., ET AL,
    Defendants,
    AMERICAN & FOREIGN INSURANCE
    COMPANY; R A S BUILDERS, INC.; ROYAL
    INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    96-CV-2815
    July 28, 2000
    Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Alisha Smith appeals an adverse judgment as a matter of law rendered at the
    conclusion of her case in chief during trial. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Smith was employed as an auditor with R.G.I.S., an inventory company hired
    by Sears Roebuck & Co. On February 24, 1996, Smith reported to work at the
    Sears store in Acadiana Mall in Lafayette, Louisiana. Upon her arrival, she was
    assigned first to the clothing department and then to the hardware stock room.
    While working in the hardware stock room she was struck in the head by a board.
    Smith instituted a state court action against Sears and RAS Builders, Inc., a
    contractor remodeling certain areas of the Sears store during the time period in
    question. Smith alleged that both Sears and RAS were negligent in placement of
    the board and in causing it to fall. Sears removed the action to federal court based
    on diversity jurisdiction.
    At the conclusion of Smith’s case in chief during the course of a jury trial,
    RAS and American Foreign Insurance Company moved for judgment as a matter
    of law. The trial court granted that motion, concluding that Smith failed to offer
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published
    and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    2
    any evidence that RAS was legally liable for her injuries.
    ANALYSIS
    We review the challenged decision de novo, applying the same legal standard
    as the district court.2 All evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the
    nonmovant, and all inferences are drawn in the nonmovant’s favor.3 If “there is no
    legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury” to find for the nonmovant,
    judgment as a matter of law is appropriate.4
    A close review of the record on appeal and briefs persuades that the district
    court did not err in its conclusion that Smith failed to submit any evidence in
    support of her claim that RAS is liable for her injuries. Accordingly, there being
    no legally sufficient evidentiary basis upon which a reasonable jury could find for
    Smith, judgment as a matter of law herein was appropriate.
    The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
    2
    Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 
    201 F.3d 680
    , 687 (5th Cir. 2000).
    3
    
    Id.
    4
    
    Id. at 687-88
    ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-30743

Filed Date: 7/28/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021