Louisiana Premises Liability Blog : Louisiana Premises Liability Lawyer & Attorney : Irwin Fritchie Urquhart & Moore Law Firm : LA Slip & Fall, Property Security : New Orleans, Baton Rouge

Establishing how long a dangerous condition has actually been present with any retail establishment continues to be a key element in establishing premises liability. In Abshire v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on an oily substance which later turned out to be potpourri oil. Hobby Lobby moved for summary judgment on the basis that there was no evidence that any of its employees had spilled oil nor was there any evidence of how long the oil had been on the floor. Finding that the spilled oil was a condition of the premises, the court applied the provisions of the Louisiana Slip and Fall Statute (pdf) and held that the plaintiff had to make a positive showing of the existence of the condition prior to the fall. Whether the period of time that the condition existed was sufficiently lengthy to require discovery by a merchant was necessarily a fact question, however, the prerequisite of showing that it at least existed for some period of time prior to the fall was an essential element of the plaintiff’s case. Here, noting that the plaintiff did not know how long the potpourri oil had been on the floor prior to her fall and did not know how the bottle came to be on a different aisle from where it was stored, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the store owner.

 Take-Away: This case reinforces the requirement that a plaintiff at least produce some evidence as to how long an allegedly dangerous condition existed on the floor of the premises before he/she can state a prima facie case of liability. Here, it was clear that the plaintiff had absolutely no evidence (she did not even file an opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment) which would demonstrate how long that the substance at issue – potpourri oil – had been on the floor or how it had come to be found in an aisle other than where it was originally located. Based on the lack of sufficient evidence, the Court was correct in granting summary judgment. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although the Louisiana Slip and Fall Statute (pdf) provides a narrow avenue of potential liability, the Louisiana First Circuit’s May 8, 2009 decision in Guillory v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. (pdf) demonstrates the relatively low evidentiary threshold that is needed to circumvent the defenses supplied under the statute. On January 28, 2006, Geraldine Guillory visited an Outback Steakhouse in East Baton Rouge Parish.  During her visit,  Ms. Guillory excused herself to visit the restroom and upon returning, Guillory allegedly slipped on a french fry and fell to the floor. A waitress who was standing at a nearby table picked up the remains of the potato while another customer helped Ms. Guillory to her feet. Guillory and her husband filed suit against Outback alleging various injuries associated with the fall. 

After the completion of discovery, Outback filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the Plaintiffs could not offer sufficient evidence that it had knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition (the french fry) as required under Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.6 (pdf). The trial court agreed and granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.  On appeal, however, the First Circuit disagreed and reinstated the case against Outback. After reciting the Louisiana Slip and Fall Statute, the First Circuit recognized that a merchant cannot be liable for injuries associated with a slip-and-fall unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the slip-and-fall was caused by a “dangerous condition” on the property, that the merchant had actual or “constructive” knowledge of the condition and, despite this knowledge, failed to exercise reasonable care. Because the plaintiffs could produce no evidence as to how the french fry ended up on the floor, the First Circuit correctly reasoned that the case would turn on whether the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate “constructive” knowledge.  Citing the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in White v. Wal-Mart, the First Circuit reasoned that in order to demonstrate “constructive” knowledge, the plaintiffs need only show that the condition existed for “some period of time.” 

Applying the “some period of time” standard, the First Circuit re-analyzed the testimony of the case and reversed Outback’s dismissal. The First Circuit relied principally upon the testimony of two Outback employees who testified that the french fry was “stuck to the floor” and that a “rim” had remained after it was picked up. This, together with hearsay statements of patrons that they had “seen” a piece of french fry on the floor, was sufficient for the First Circuit to conclude that there existed sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Outback had “constructive” knowledge of the dangerous condition. 

Take-Away:  This case demonstrates that even the slightest evidence can sometimes defeat a summary judgment motion. Although the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that any Outback employee was responsible for the fry falling to the floor, could not demonstrate that an Outback employee had seen the fry and failed to respond to it, could not demonstrate exactly when the fry fell to the floor, and offered no evidence of how it could have become stuck for a sufficient amount of time to form a “rim,” these deficiencies were not so great as to preclude the case from going to trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Robertson v. Frank’s Super Value Foods Inc., a defendant store owner selectively edited a video surveillance tape that captured a slip and fall to eliminate pre-accident footage that would have established the defendant’s knowledge of a dangerous condition (pdf). After learning of the destruction of evidence that was potentially favorable to her case, the plaintiff amended her lawsuit to add claims for negligent or intentional destruction of evidence and impairment of civil action. 

The store owner sought summary judgment on plaintiff’s intentional destruction of evidence (pdf) claim, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that the destruction was intentionally done to impede her case and that she could not establish that the store owner knew that she was going to file suit when it edited the tape. The trial court granted the motion, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims based on the destruction of evidence, and certified the judgment for appeal.

On appeal, the appellate court recognized that the plaintiff’s claims were broader than merely the intentional destruction claim and included impairment of her civil action and that, according to Louisiana tort law (pdf) the store owner may have breached a duty to preserve the evidence. The appellate court, however, noted that Louisiana courts have not clearly enunciated rules for determining under what circumstances a person will be liable for the destruction of evidence and that the Louisiana Supreme Court has not spoken on the issue. Regardless, the court held that determining the retail business owner’s intent or motivation for the selective preservation of surveillance footage was inappropriate for summary judgment procedure. 

In reviewing the facts, however, the court noted that the business owner was a sophisticated defendant with insurance to cover such accidents and access to attorneys, as well as an assumed awareness of the legal elements required to support a slip-and-fall claim and the statute of limitations for bringing such claims. The appellate court also noted that the store owner’s actions and timing in viewing and editing the video tape immediately after the accident were suspicious. Of particular interest: the store owner used a surveillance system that kept video for two weeks and then automatically re-used the tape, unless specifically directed not to do so; the store owner had exclusive custody and control over the video; the store owner directed an employee to review the tape immediately after the accident; and, the employee deleted the footage from before the accident and that would have shown whether the store owner had knowledge or constructive knowledge of the wet floor, while keeping accident and post-accident footage. Thus, the appellate court held that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded a finding that the store owner’s actions were unintentional or made in good faith. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Take-Away: This case demonstrates that a retail property owner in Louisiana may have an affirmative duty to preserve evidence related to an accident that may expose the owner to premises liability. This case suggests that liability for interference with a civil action may attach if the owner knew or should have known that a claim for injuries may be made and the property owner fails to preserve all relevant evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The importance of property owners acting promptly to address potentially dangerous conditions is demonstrated in a recent case from Jefferson Parish. In Nunnery v. City of Kenner (pdf), the plaintiff was working as a volunteer assistant volleyball coach at a local gym. Before practice began she noticed water collecting on the ground around the water fountain and brought it to the attention of the Gym Supervisor. Approximately an hour later, while dismantling the volleyball equipment, the plaintiff slipped and fell in the same general area where she had previously reported the standing water. According to the plaintiff, the water had spread from the fountain area from the time she originally reported it. After trial, Judge Donald Rowan found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $80,000 in general damages and over $16,000 in special damages. Finding that the standing water created a “dangerous condition” which had been reported to the city’s employee, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability on the part of the City. The court, however, also found that the plaintiff “should have taken more care for her safety” given that she was aware of the condition and allocated 20% comparative fault to her.  

Take-Away: Even with the limitation of liability afforded under Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800 (pdf), a public entity can still be held responsible where it clearly had actual or constructive notice of the condition causing the accident. Here, the fact that the water leak had been reported but not corrected in a timely manner was enough to impose liability although the appellate court was probably also correct in allocating some liability to the plaintiff given that she had been the one to report the condition in the first place. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link