Judith Plunkett v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
- Trial judge
- David W. Christel (magistrate judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NO. 17-35965 JUDITH PLUNKETT D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05832-DWC Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* vs.
BEST BUY, INC. Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington David W. Christel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted December 6, 2018** Seattle, Washington Before: FLETCHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and BURNS,*** District Judge.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Larry Alan Burns, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
1 Judith Plunkett appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this premises liability action. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we don’t recite them. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ' 1291, and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment after it correctly determined that the shopping carts in the aisle did not constitute an unreasonable risk. See Iwai v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 915 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Wash. 1996) (holding that, under Washington law, a land possessor is liable to an invitee if “a condition on the land . . . involves an unreasonable risk of harm”). Because the position of the shopping carts did not pose an unreasonable risk, it was immaterial whether the risk was the result of active or passive negligence.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Plunkett’s “human factors” expert. The court correctly determined that the expert’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact and were based on speculation. See Fed.
R. Evid. 702.
AFFIRMED.
2