Plaintiff's Claims Slip Away, After Business Owner Dispels Negligence
On her way to visit her mother at Baton Rouge General Medical Center, Marion Terrance stopped by the hospital cafeteria at for a cup of ice. Ms. Terrance slipped and allegedly fell, when she stepped off of a mat in front of the ice machine. She told hospital cafeteria employees about her fall and advised that the mat was saturated with water and the ice machine was leaking. After visiting with her mother for ten to twenty minutes, Ms. Terrance returned to the cafeteria to speak with a supervisor about her injury. Eventually, Ms. Terrance filed a lawsuit against the hospital – Terrance v. Baton Rouge Gen. Med. Ctr.
The hospital cafeteria supervisor, Margie Akins, testified that she did not see Ms. Terrance fall. Ms. Akins was informed of the incident by cafeteria employees, who told her that Ms. Terrance slipped but did not fall. In response, Ms. Akins immediately checked the area around the ice machine and under the mat and did not see any liquid or ice. Ms. Akins testified that she routinely performed floor checks in the cafeteria every ten to fifteen minutes. On the day of the incident, she had worked in the cafeteria all day and had done a floor check not long before Ms. Terrance slipped. Ms. Akins and the other cafeteria employees testified that they had never seen the ice machine leak, nor had they seen anyone fall by the ice machine.
After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Ms. Terrance, finding that an unreasonable condition existed at the area around the ice machine and that this unreasonable condition caused her slip and fall. The hospital appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the hospital argued that there was no evidence that it created or had actual knowledge of the foreign substance on the floor. The hospital also asserted that there was no evidence of the amount of time the unreasonably dangerous condition existed.
The appellate court concluded that La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.6 (pdf) did not apply and that the hospital’s duty must be analyzed under a standard negligence theory of liability. Under this standard, Ms. Terrance had to show that she slipped, fell, and was injured because of a foreign substance on the hospital’s premises. The burden then shifted to the hospital to show that it acted reasonably to discover and correct the dangerous condition.
Although the appellate court seemed to disagree with the trial court’s finding that Ms. Terrance slipped and actually fell, it could not reverse the trial court’s determinations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact. The appellate court, however, found that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether the hospital could exculpate itself from the presumption of negligence by showing that it did not act negligently in causing the slip and fall. Reviewing the record, the appellate court found ample evidence that the hospital acted reasonably prior to the accident and in response to Ms. Terrance’s report of water on the floor. The hospital cafeteria supervisor routinely performed floor checks for spills every ten to fifteen minutes; the hospital cafeteria had a regular schedule for cleaning and mopping cafeteria floors; and, after receiving notification of a spill, it was immediately cleaned up. Therefore, regardless, of whether Mr. Terrance actually fell, the fall was not caused by the hospital’s negligence and the judgment of the trial court was reversed.
Take-Away: Liability for a slip and fall may be avoided by strong policies, including regular monitoring for and immediate response to dangerous conditions.
This article was co-authored by Cami Capodice, and associate at Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore LLC
