Reginald Donald Ray v. Food Lion, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1149
REGINALD DONALD RAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FOOD LION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00470-CMH-JFA)
Submitted: November 1, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016
Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Hailu, LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS HAILU, PLLC, Annandale,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jared A. Warren, BRITT & BYRNE, PLLC,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Donald Ray appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Ray’s
claim of negligence arising from his falling on the Appellee’s
premises. We review de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment, viewing facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Newport News Holdings Corp. v. Virtual
City Vision, Inc., 650 F.3d 423, 435 (4th Cir. 2011). Summary
judgment should be granted “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). “‘[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
return a verdict for that party.’” Newport News, 650 F.3d at
434 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
249-50 (1986)).
Under Virginia law, “[t]o establish actionable negligence,
[Ray] had the burden to show the existence of a legal duty, a
breach of the duty, and proximate causation resulting in
damage.” Atrium Unit Owners Ass’n v. King, 585 S.E.2d 545, 548
(Va. 2003). Food Lion owed Ray the “duty to exercise ordinary
care toward [him] as its invitee upon its premises.” Colonial
Stores Inc. v. Pulley, 125 S.E.2d 188, 190 (Va. 1962). “When an
invitee is injured because of some foreign substance or object

-- 2 of 3 --

3
on the floor of the premises the owner or occupant is not liable
unless it can be shown that he had actual knowledge of the
presence thereof or that in the exercise of reasonable care he
should have known of its presence and failed in his duty to
remove it.” Gauldin v. Va. Winn-Dixie, Inc., 370 F.2d 167, 169
(4th Cir. 1966) (applying Virginia law).
“[C]onstructive knowledge or notice of a defective
condition of a premise or a fixture may be shown by evidence
that the defect was noticeable and had existed for a sufficient
length of time to charge its possessor with notice of its
defective condition.” Grim v. Rahe, Inc., 434 S.E.2d 888, 890
(Va. 1993). “Hence, if the evidence fails to show when a defect
occurred on the premises, the plaintiff has not made out a prima
facie case.” Id. Here, the district court correctly concluded
that Ray failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence
because he failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the
Appellee had actual or constructive notice of the alleged
dangerous condition.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --