When going to the nail salon, the last thing anyone thinks about is falling and getting seriously injured. Slip and fall accidents happen all the time, and it is important to gather as much evidence as possible and retain a good personal injury attorney in order to build the best possible case for yourself. The courts do not look favorably on those who make a claim and have very little evidence to back it up, as Pamela Burnett (“Ms. Burnett”) discovered when trying to win damages from the Lucky Nails salon.
On August 20, 2012, Ms. Burnett went to the Lucky Nails salon in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to get a standard nail polish change. All was going well at the salon, but as she was walking toward the pedicure chairs after choosing a polish color, she slipped and hit her head on the foot rest of one of the chairs. Ms. Burnett filed a lawsuit against the nail salon and its insurer, State Farm Insurance Company. Ms. Burnett alleged that the nail salon was negligent in maintaining the property and the floor of the salon. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment because Ms. Burnett could not prove that there was a foreign substance or hazardous condition on the floor, that the nail salon created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazard, and that the salon failed to exercise reasonable care. The Trial Court found the evidence did not demonstrate that there was anything obvious on the floor. Ms. Burnett testified that the floor felt slippery, but was unable to identify what kind of substance was on the floor. The Trial Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on September 9, 2014, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. Ms. Burnett appealed this decision to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.
On appeal, the First Circuit addressed Ms. Burnett’s argument that the Trial Court failed to look at the most critical evidence of the case. This evidence was a video recording of Ms. Burnett’s fall at the nail salon. The Trial Court stated that they were unable to see the video, however, they had plenty of still photographs taken directly from the video recording. The photographs clearly depicted the floor of the salon and they showed no substance or liquid on the floor. The First Circuit was able to view the video but found that it did not matter that the Trial Court was unable to view it because it did not present any new conclusions to reverse the summary judgment decision.