Carrie and Robert Fried appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this personal injury suit filed on behalf of their minor daughter. We AFFIRM.

The Frieds argue that the defendant’s employee was subject to a heightened duty of care owed to young children rather than to the usual reasonable person standard. They did not advance this argument in the district court, and we ordinarily do not consider new theories raised on appeal. See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131-32 n. 10 (5th Cir. 1992). Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that the witness’s description of how the accident occurred provides no evidence that the defendant’s employee breached any duty of care, heightened or otherwise, when she opened the restroom door and it closed suddenly. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); cf. Brown v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 671 So.2d 1195, 1197 (La.Ct.App. 1996) (although motorist driving near children has a heightened duty, driver must act appro *938 priately and is not an insurer of every child’s safety).

AFFIRMED.