Bradley

MEMORANDUM *

William Bradley appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in Bradley’s diversity action. Bradley sought to recover for personal injuries suffered when he slipped and fell on a wet floor at the Wal-Mart store in Spanaway, Washington. The district court found that Bradley failed to produce evidence that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition or that his injuries were caused by his fall. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, see Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013 , 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm it.

Bradley must demonstrate four separate elements to establish liability on the part of Wal-Mart: (1) a duty owed to him, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a resulting injury, and (4) proximate cause. See Reynolds v. Hicks, 134 Wash.2d 491, 495 , 951 P.2d 761 (1998). Bradley’s failure to satisfy any of these four requirements is sufficient grounds for dismissal of his claim. See Howell v. Blood Bank, 117 Wash.2d 619, 625 , 818 P.2d 1056 (1991).

Bradley failed to provide even a minimal quantum of evidence on the second and fourth elements. In order to…