Slip And Fall Case Goes Down The Drain When Plaintiff Cannot Show Actual Or Constructive Knowledge Of Wet Floor

Posted on December 29, 2009 by Ed Trapolin

On a rainy day, Barbara Price entered the Waterworks office to pay her bill. Upon entering, she slipped on water in the lobby and fell injuring her leg and back. In Price v. Waterworks District #1, et al., Mrs. Price sued the Waterworks and the Parish government for her injuries. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (pdf), arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that would preclude the granting of judgment in their favor. According to the defendants, both sides agreed that: it was raining when Mrs. Price entered the building; the defendants did not have a written inspection policy regarding inspecting the condition of the floors; there was no “wet floor” warning sign placed inside the building; Mrs. Price slipped on water inside the building; and, no one reported water on the floor prior to her slip and fall.  The defendants also argued that Mrs. Price failed to meet her burden under Louisiana public entity premises liability law of establishing that the wet floor was actually or constructively known to the defendants and that they had failed to timely act to correct the dangerous condition (pdf).

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and Mrs. Price appealed, arguing that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the defendants’ actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor. Mrs. Price claimed that the fact that it was raining and that the defendants did not have an inspection policy for the floors was sufficient to create an issue for trial and avoid summary judgment. The appellate court disagreed, citing Louisiana Supreme Court precedent that the absence of an inspection plan does not suggest that an employee of a public entity has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in holding that defendants’ lack of an inspection policy for the floors did not prevent the granting of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The appellate court further noted that Mrs. Price had not shown that the defendants’ had constructive knowledge of the wet floors by pointing to facts that would support an inference that the defendants had actual knowledge of the wet floor.  Therefore, the summary judgment was affirmed. 

Take-Away:  Simply because a plaintiff slips on a wet floor will not impose strict liability on a public entity. Furthermore, unless the plaintiff can make a prima facie showing of the public entity or property owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor, Louisiana courts will not hesitate to grant summary judgment in favor of a public entity. 

Tags: , , ,

Buggy Tracks Smear Wal-Mart's Summary Judgment Argument

Posted on December 8, 2009 by David Melancon

In  Johnson v. Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC the plaintiff, Ellen Johnson, was shopping at Wal-Mart and pushing her cart down one of the aisles. As she turned to proceed up another aisle, her cart began to slide and she slipped and fell, injuring her left knee.

Plaintiff filed suit against Wal-Mart and alleged that the sole cause of the accident was Wal-Mart’s failure to keep the floors free from spills. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that plaintiff could not carry her burden of proof under Louisiana’s Slip and Fall Statute, as interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in  White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  In White, the Louisiana Supreme Court specifically addressed the question of constructive notice and held:

Though there is no bright line time period, a claimant must show that ‘the condition existed for such a period of time . .’ Whether the period of time is sufficiently lengthy that a merchant should have discovered the condition is necessarily a fact question; however, there remains the prerequisite showing of some time period. A claimant who simply shows that the condition existed without an additional showing that the condition existed for some time before the fall has not carried the burden of proving constructive notice as mandated by the statute. Though the time period need not be specific in minutes or hours, constructive notice requires that the claimant prove the condition existed for some time period prior to the fall. This is not an impossible burden. 

In the Johnson case, the Court found that plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact as to whether Wal-Mart had constructive notice of the spill. Specifically, plaintiff submitted evidence that the spill was on the floor for some period of time. The Court based its finding on the fact that both plaintiff and a store employee testified that the spill was spread in a circular puddle over about a three to four foot area and that plaintiff’s buggy left tracks in the puddle after it went through it. Additionally, a Wal-Mart employee was working nearby and was the first on the scene of the accident.

Take-Away:  As long as a plaintiff is able to produce evidence that a spill existed for some period of time, however uncertain the amount of time may be, courts will be reluctant to grant summary judgment in favor of the merchant.

Tags: