United States District Court, E.D. Virginia
OPINION AND ORDER
S. Davis United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment
filed by Xanterra Kingsmill, LLC ("Defendant" or
"Kingsmill"). ECF No. 21. After examination of the
briefs and record, the Court finds that a hearing is
unnecessary, as the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented, and the decisional process would not be aided
significantly by oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); E.D. Va.
Loc. Civ. R. 7(J).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
undisputed facts before the Court establish as
Kingsmill's resort premises include a tennis center that
hosts 12-week long tennis leagues. Christine Estep
("Plaintiff") participated in such tennis leagues
during the spring, summer, and fall of 2013.
path made of asphalt, and edged with green grass, leads to
the Kingsmill tennis courts. On September 12, 2013, at 9:45
a.m., Plaintiff fell while walking along the path toward the
below photograph depicts the path, and was taken less than 3
0 minutes after Plaintiff s fall. Plaintiff fell on the
grassy patch located on the left side of the path as
indicated by the blue arrow in the photograph below (the
jblue arrow was added by the Court for illustration
green grassy area depicted in the photographs is
approximately 16 inches long and extends approximately 14
inches into the darker colored paved asphalt path.
While walking along the left side of the paved path,
Plaintiff stepped into the grassy area, or partially into the
grassy area, causing her to fall and sustain injuries to her
foot and lower leg.
the time of her fall, Plaintiff was alone on the paved path
and was not distracted by her phone or other sources.
Many people, including Plaintiff, have safely used the paved
path on prior occasions and Defendant has not had any
complaints about the grassy area extending into the paved
path, nor is Defendant aware of anyone else being injured at
is undisputed that there was approximately five feet of open
paved path to the right of the grassy area, and there was no
opposing foot traffic or other reason that Plaintiff could
not have moved to the right in order to stay on the paved
While Plaintiff made statements in her deposition that do not
appear to contest the fact that the grassy area was visible,
she contends that it did not look like a trip hazard or
anything obvious to avoid. Plaintiff asserts that she was