Articles Posted in Slip and Fall Injuries

concert-1436178-1024x768What starts out as an entertaining night out for a concert with friends, ends with painful injuries.  Instead of enjoying your favorite music with companions, you must go to the hospital to treat injuries sustained due to negligent maintenance of the concert venue.  You are now recovering from your injuries and are faced with medical expenses.  You know that you shouldn’t be responsible for the medical bills; after all, you are hurt because someone failed to do their job.  But who exactly is responsible?  Determining the party responsible for personal injuries was a recent issue in a case out of Baton Rouge.

In March of 2006, Ms. Shannon Rodrigue went to a concert with her friends at the Riverside Performing Centroplex in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  As Ms. Rodrigue and her friends waited in line to enter the Centroplex, a Spectator Management Group (“SMG”) employee instructed the group to go around the side of the building and go down a flight of stairs in order to get their seats.  As the group proceeded to head down the stairs, Ms. Rodrigue missed a step and fell down the flight of stairs.  The fall was the result of a poorly lit stairwell.  Ms. Rodrigue sustained several injuries to her head, back, neck, knees, and wrists.

Ms. Rodrigue filed a lawsuit against several parties whom she believed were responsible for the poorly lit stairwell that ultimately led to her injuries.  The parties included the Centroplex, the Centroplex’s insurer, and the City of Baton Rouge-Parish of East Baton Rouge; SMG and its insurer.  In response to Ms. Rodrigue’s filing of the lawsuit, SMG and its insurer filed a motion to have Ms. Rodrigue’s lawsuit against them dismissed.  SMG asserted that Ms. Rodrigue had no claim against them and their insurance company because they did not have custody of the stairwell where Ms. Rodrigue fell.  SMG further claimed that even though Ms. Rodrigue and her friends were directed to the stairwell by one of its employees, SMG was not aware of the lighting situation of the stairwell before her fall. The  District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge granted SMG’s motion and Ms. Rodrigue’s claims against it were dismissed.  Ms. Rodrigue appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.  

to-market-1510735-1024x768No legal case is without controversy, but some of the most controversial types of cases involve a slip and fall injury. For some, it is hard to believe that a “little fall” could actually cause substantial injury. Often times, those who bring a slip and fall action are seen as milking the situation to try to get money from a business. However, when a person is injured he or she must prove that the injury was the result of someone’s alleged negligence. This proof requires that the injured individual show that the facts surrounding the incident support his or her claim. When coupled with a stringent legal standard, a dispute of what occurred at the time of the injury complicates the matter. The following slip and fall lawsuit filed against the Albertsons in Shreveport, Louisiana, shows the difficulty in bringing such claims to trial.

Yvonne and Aristide Ton were visiting an Albertsons’s grocery store in 2013. Upon arriving at the store, Ms. Ton went straight to the display of pumpkins out front, while Mr. Ton went to get a cart. After looking at the pumpkin display, Ms. Ton looked around for her husband, took a step or two, and then fell injuring her shoulder. Ms. Ton could not identify exactly what happened when she fell, but she claimed in her lawsuit that the fall was caused by a “defect in the concrete.” Albertsons responded by claiming that the concrete area where Ms. Ton fell posed no reasonable risk of harm. Albertsons provided witness testimony stating that the area where Ms. Ton fell had no prior history of falls and that the store had received no complaints regarding the area around the pumpkin display.

Under Louisiana Law, a business must “keep aisles, passageways, and floors in a reasonably safe condition.” La. R.S. 9:2800.6. This duty imposes a reasonable effort on the business to keep its premise free of any unsafe conditions which may cause injury. To bring a slip and fall claim against a business, the injured person must prove three things: 1) the floor surface presented an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm 2) the business created or knew of the unsafe floor surface and 3) the business failed to use reasonable care.

beauty-salon-4-1570299-1024x1015When 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.

grocery-store-1-1161348-1-1024x681When a merchant sets up shop, he/she may become liable for any accident that occurs on the business’s premises. However, the merchant is not automatically at fault. Sometimes a person is injured and the merchant is not to blame, either because the plaintiff was careless or failed to satisfy his burden of proof. The law in Louisiana that governs a merchant’s liability for negligence also governs the plaintiff’s burden of proof when bringing a claim against a merchant. This law also provides a list of elements, which the plaintiff must prove in order to succeed in their claim. See La. R.S. 9:2800.6.

The first part of the law sets forth a merchant’s duties such as keeping their aisles, passageways, and floors free from hazardous conditions. The second part, which deals with an injured plaintiff bringing a negligence claim against a merchant, provides a test. Although this part is directed towards a claimant, it also puts merchants on notice as to their duties towards customers. In order for the plaintiff to prevail, the plaintiff must meet all elements of the test. A person who was lawfully on the merchant’s premises and sustained damages, injuries, or death must prove: (1) the condition which caused the plaintiff’s misfortune presented an unreasonable risk of harm and the risk must have been reasonably unforeseeable; (2) the merchant either created the condition or knew of the condition prior to the plaintiff’s injury; and (3) the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. The absence of a merchant’s “clean up policy,” written or verbal, will not be enough for the plaintiff to prove a failure of reasonable care on the part of the merchant.

In this case, a store patron appealed the District Court’s judgment that allowed a grocery store to escape liability after the patron fell and injured himself in the store’s parking lot due to uneven pavement. The Plaintiff, Mr. Jerome Waddles, and a friend, Mr. Donald Robinson, arrived at Brookshire’s Grocery Store in Bossier City, LA. As the two walked towards the store, Waddles tripped on the uneven pavement and fell relatively hard. At trial, Mr. Waddles and Mr. Robinson described the area as a “crack and a hole.” Despite the damaged pavement being located in a heavily-trafficked area, the was no history of any prior incident.

shopping-cart-1550709-1024x768When you suffer a personal injury such as a slip and fall and pursue a remedy in court, you must be able to support your allegations with sufficient evidence. After conducting initial discovery, a party may move for summary judgment and seek to have the case dismissed before it is ever heard by a trier of fact. When a party moves for summary judgment, it argues that the initial discovery shows that there are no issues of material fact to be decided by the trier of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The opposing party, the party seeking to avoid having their case dismissed, must then present evidence to show that there are issues of material fact that should be heard at trial. In a recent case from the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal, a plaintiff conveniently “corrected” her deposition testimony attempting to defeat a motion for summary judgment. While the suspect changes were ultimately admitted, this was not sufficient to allow the case to go forward at trial.

In this case, Ginger Crawford slipped and fell on a wet floor in the dairy section of a grocery store owned by Brookshire Grocery Company in Springhill, Webster Parish, Louisiana. In response to a request by Brookshire, Ms. Crawford gave a deposition in which she swore to the court her version of the incident that happened in Brookshire’s Grocery. The deposition was certified by the court reporter. Brookshire then filed a motion for summary judgment, relying heavily on Ms. Crawford’s deposition. Brookshire’s motion argued that the case should be dismissed before trial because based on the initial discovery, it was evident that Ms. Crawford could satisfy her evidentiary burden under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute. More specifically, Brookshire asserted that Ms. Crawford could not satisfy the “temporal” element of her claim.

In order to succeed in a slip and fall claim, a plaintiff must satisfy each and every element of Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute. See L.A. R.S. 9:2800.6.  First, the condition that caused the fall must have presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff and that risk of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable. Second, the merchant must have either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage, prior to the occurrence. Third, the merchant must have failed to exercise reasonable care. In determining whether the merchant exercised reasonable care, the absence of a written or verbal uniform cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.

greengrocer-1241104-1024x768Have you ever been involved in a slip and fall accident inside a store resulting from water being on the floor? Were you injured as a result? If so, who would you think was at fault? How would you receive just compensation? In a recent case, the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal discusses the necessary factors a plaintiff must prove in order to show that a merchant – such as a grocery store, clothing store, or even the owner of a food truck – was responsible for the injuries sustained resulting from a slip and fall accident.

This lawsuit originated from a slip and fall accident occurring on December 16, 2012, when Donna Ferlicca exited Brookshire Grocery Company’s store in Monroe, Louisiana. Upon entering the store, Ms. Ferlicca slipped and fell. There was allegedly water on the floor from the rainfall outside. Ms. Ferlicca suffered a fractured left arm resulting from her fall. On January 31, 2013, Ms. Ferlicca filed a lawsuit against Brookshire her damages. A bench trial proceeded.  A bench trial is a trial where the finder of fact is a judge or panel of judges rather than a jury.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ms. Ferlicca and awarded her general damages of $21,000.00 and special damages of $4,921.12. General damages are damages that do not have a fixed amount meaning the amount can vary based on any level of pain and suffering, mental anguish, or loss of enjoyment the plaintiff has suffered. Special damages are those damages that usually have a fixed market value such as lost wages, medical bills, or future medical expenses. These type of damages (general and special damages) are called Compensatory Damages. Compensatory damages are designed to place the plaintiff back into the position she would have been if she had not been injured.  The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ms. Ferlicca holding that 90% of fault belonged to Brookshire and 10% of fault belonged to Ms. Ferlicca herself. However, Brookshire filed an appeal to dispute the ruling of the Trial Court.  Brookshire argued that the Trial Court failed to properly apply slip and fall law in this case.

louisiana-state-capitol-1228662-1-1024x768Louisiana law holds responsible those who cause injury to others by failing to repair unreasonably dangerous conditions in their custody or control. This type of liability is called “custodial liability.” For example, a university that fails to maintain its walkways so as to cause injury to pedestrians can be held liable for damages by injured persons.  However, the university in this example would not be liable for conditions which are considered “open and obvious.” In a recent case, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal helped illustrate what is meant by “open and obvious.”

In 2011, Reina Abolofia was riding her bike at night on the campus of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge when she hit an unmarked and unpainted concrete-filled metal pole that had been installed in the middle of the sidewalk.  She suffered injuries as a result and filed a lawsuit against LSU alleging seeking to hold LSU responsible for her damages under La. C.C. art. 2317 and La. C.C. art. 2317.1 with respect to defects of things that cause damage.

During discovery, Ms. Abolofia learned that the portion of sidewalk where her accident occurred was partly owned by LSU and partly owned by Southgate Towers, LLC.  She added Southgate Towers as a defendant because it was unclear if Southgate had erected the metal pole or LSU had done so and on whose property the pole was situated.  

shopping-1241024-1024x637A jury’s verdicts can an often depend upon which party it believes the most. In a jury trial, the jury is indeed the trier of fact. It hears the evidence and makes findings of fact based on the credibility of witnesses and other evidence presented at trial. In a case out of Gonzales, Louisiana the verdict hinged on whether the Plaintiff, Mindy Weiley, appeared credible to the jury or whether she seemed to be a liar.

Ms. Weiley filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart after slipping and falling in a puddle of water at one of their stores.  Ms. Weiley contended that she suffered multiple injuries to her back, neck, and left knee.  At trial, the jury found that Wal-Mart was negligent by failing to keep its premises clear of debris, to clean up that debris, and to monitor the area covered by debris. However, the jury found that Wal-Mart’s negligence did not cause Ms. Weily’s injury. It did not believe her testimony that she suffered injury at the hands of Wal-Mart and dismissed the case in Wal-Mart’s favor. Weily appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was manifestly erroneous and that its finding of liability was totally inconsistent with its denial of damages.

When a Court of Appeal in Louisiana reviews a decision of the Trial Court, it is not permitted to determine whether the jury was, in fact, right or wrong in reaching its determination. Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993). Rather, the Court only determines whether the jury’s decision was reasonably based upon everything the jury heard at trial. The jury’s determinations regarding the credibility, or trustworthiness, of witnesses and their testimony is given much deference. Rarely will these findings be disturbed on appeal.  

ballroom-sign-1195748-1024x768The Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute aims to protect persons from unreasonable risks of harm by unscrupulous merchants. At the same time, it limits the liability of merchants and protects them from frivolous lawsuits. In order to succeed on a merchant liability claim, the plaintiff must show that the merchant knew or should’ve known of the dangerous condition that harmed the plaintiff. In a recent case, while considering that a dance ballroom can be considered a “merchant, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants had knowledge or constructive knowledge of the risk of harm.

In October 2010, D’Andrea Mills slipped and fell on a spilled drink and broken glass on the dance floor while attending a private party at the Lyceum Dean Ballroom in Baton Rouge. Mills sustained injuries, including two broken bones, which later required surgery, and was taken to the local ER for assistance. Mills filed a lawsuit seeking damages against Cyntreniks Plaza, L.L.C., the owner and operator of the Lyceum. Cyntreniks moved for summary judgment, seeking to have the case thrown out before trial. In its motion, Cyntreniks argued that Mills failed to satisfy her burden of proof under the Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6, and there were no genuine issues of material fact for the court to determine.

The Trial Court granted summary judgment in favor of Cyntreniks and dismissed Mills’ claim. Mills appealed the judgment to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Cyntreniks. Judge Holdridge dissented.

grey-old-tractor-1450078-1024x768When an accident occurs, it’s often difficult to determine what actually happened until the aftermath, but in the justice system, piecing a puzzle together and drawing conclusions based on little remaining evidence rarely constitutes enough of a basis to file a lawsuit. As the court said in the case of Benjamin Tomaso when he attempted to file a lawsuit against Home Depot, “[s]peculation as to what caused an accident cannot supply the factual support necessary to show that a plaintiff would be able to meet his evidentiary burden of proof at trial.”

On April 18, 2012, Mr. Tomaso visited a Home Depot Store in Slidell, Louisiana. As Mr. Tomaso waited in the parking lot for his fiancé to return an item, he noticed lawn tractors on display and sat on one to “check it out.” A Home Depot employee who was returning a line of shopping carts asked Mr. Tomaso to get down from the tractor so he could move it and push the carts through. Mr. Tomaso attempted to get down from the vehicle and fell. At the time of the incident, Mr. Tomaso was unaware of what caused him to fall, but immediately after he noticed a zip tie on the step of the tractor and reasoned that it was the “only thing” that could have caused his fall.

Mr. Tomaso filed a lawsuit against Home Depot, Inc. on April 17, 2013. Mr. Tomaso alleged that his injury resulted from “a hazard that had negligently not been removed from the subject lawnmower” which caught his foot. Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment which asserted that the zip tie was not a defective condition and Mr. Tomaso presented no evidence that his injury was foreseeable or that the Home Depot should have known the injury would occur.