Fifth Circuit Prevents Mother From Suing Walmart Over Daughter's Inhalant-Abuse Death
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has refused to allow a mother to sue Walmart after her daughter purchased a large quantity of aerosol dust remover from one location over the course of 27 hours and was later found dead in the parking lot of that store from inhalant abuse.
October 18, 2018 at 03:01 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has refused to allow a mother to sue Walmart after her daughter purchased a large quantity of aerosol dust remover from one location over the course of 27 hours and was later found dead in the parking lot of that store from inhalant abuse.
According to Allen v. Wal-Mart, Karalee Alaine Williams entered a Baytown Walmart store on nine different occasions and purchased at least 60 cans of dust remover over the course of two days in 2016.
During her second visit, Williams soiled herself but proceeded to buy more cans of dust remover, and told the checkout employee that she had had a seizure in the parking lot. On her third visit the following morning, Williams entered the store naked from the waist down. Walmart employees noticed Williams' condition, and gave her a towel and a sundress, and she later purchased more cans of dust remover, the court said.
Williams died from inhaling the dust remover in the Walmart parking lot on April 12, 2016, but her body was not discovered in her car until the following day, according to the decision.
Deleese Allen, Williams' mother, sued Walmart for premises liability, claiming the retailer acted negligently when it continued to sell Williams dust remover despite her impaired state. But a Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court dismissed Allen's complaint for failure to state a claim—a decision she appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
In its recent decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling dismissing Allen's claim, reasoning that Walmart did not owe Allen a duty under state law to protect her daughter from abusing the dust remover.
“Neither was it illegal for Wal-Mart to sell Williams dust remover, because she was an adult,” wrote Carl Stewart, chief justice of the Fifth Circuit.
“Because Allen did not plead that there were any issues with the conditions of the premises, and because, as we elaborate below, Wal-Mart did not owe Williams any duty of care regarding her purchase or abuse of dust remover, Wal-Mart cannot be found negligent under a theory of premises liability,” Stewart wrote. “We thus hold that Allen's negligence claim based on premises liability fails.”
Jeff Steidley, a Houston attorney who represents Allen, did not return a call for comment.
Kyle Giacco, a Houston attorney who represents Walmart, also did not return a call for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All5th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
5 minute readAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250