Articles Posted in Slip and Fall Injuries

Vacations should be a time for relaxation and unwinding from the stresses of everyday life. No one who spends their hard-earned money renting a vacation condo expects to be injured during their stay. But how much responsibility does the owner of the condo have for maintaining the furniture in the unit?

Elizabeth Alvarado rented a condo at the Lodge at the Buffs, a resort in St. Francisville, Louisiana. Unfortunately, Alvarado was severely injured inside the condo when a stool she was sitting on collapsed underneath her. Alvarado filed a lawsuit against the Lodge and also Cole Properties, the owner of the condominium unit. Both the Lodge and Cole Properties denied any wrongdoing and filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Alvardo’s lawsuit. 

According to Alavardo, the stool was missing screws, which caused it to collapse. In the rental agreement for the condo that Alvarado signed, it stated that Cole Properties was responsible for furnishing and maintaining a rental unit. However, it was up to Lodge to notify Cole Properties of any defects in a unit. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, reasoning that neither the Lodge nor Cole Properties knew of the stool’s defective condition. In the trial court’s view, it was unreasonable to expect the Lodge or Cole Properties employees to check and inspect every single piece of furniture in a rental unit. Unless there was a visibly obvious defect, the employees had no responsibility to make repairs. Alvarado appealed to Louisiana’s First Circuit Court of Appeal. 

How often do you walk along a sidewalk without paying attention to where you’re walking? Next time you’re out strolling, take notice of where you step! An obvious danger could prevent you from recovering for any injuries, as a local Louisiana woman recently discovered.

On July 18, 2012, Anita Melancon was walking on a sidewalk at the Perkins Rowe mixed-use shopping center in Baton Rouge when she tripped and fell, sustaining injuries. The sidewalk in question passed over a driveway ramp, creating a curb that varied in height. The sidewalk’s design required that pedestrians step down onto the ramp before stepping back up onto the sidewalk. Melancon tripped as she was stepping back up onto the sidewalk. 

After filing a lawsuit for damages against Perkins Rowe and its insurer, Aspen Specialty Insurance Company (Aspen), the court granted Aspen’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Melancon’s lawsuit. Aspen asserted that because the varying heights of the sidewalk curb were an open and obvious risk, Perkins Rowe did not have a duty to protect pedestrians from the danger created by the curb. Melancon disputed that the danger was “open and obvious” and appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit. 

A night at a piano bar in New Orleans is usually a relaxing and enjoyable evening. Yet, the night can take a whole step in the opposite direction if you fall down the front step of the building on your way out. What happens to your personal injury case, however, when there’s doubt about whether or not the piano bar destroyed evidence you could have used against them? Is it appropriate for a trial court to determine whether or not the evidence was intentionally destroyed?

This was Mary Fiveash’s fate when she left Pat O’Brien’s piano bar on January 14, 2014. Ms. Fiveash fell down a tiled step outside Pat O’Brien’s, resulting in multiple injuries. The most severe injury was a spiral break of the humerus bone in her right arm. She alleged that the step’s poor condition and the bar’s lack of adequate maintenance of the step, caused her fall and, therefore, her injury. Where the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal picks up the story is in what happened after Ms. Fiveash filed her initial lawsuit against Pat O’Brien’s and their insurer Evanston Insurance Company. 

Ms. Fiveash filed her initial case on July 11, 2014, and on September 12, 2014, her and her lawyers emailed Pat O’Brien’s to request that a construction expert examine the step for use of his assessment at trial. On October 24, 2014, they agreed for an inspection to take place on November 24. No more than a day after this agreement, a trash can carried up the step at Pat O’Brien’s damaged the step’s threshold, causing the bar to deem it an immediate safety risk and needing repair before the inspection. They notified Ms. Fiveash of this and said the changes would still leave the step in “identical condition” from when her injury occurred. Ms. Fiveash agreed to this only because of the “identical condition” guarantee. When the inspection took place on November 24, it was clear there had been a significant improvement in the step’s condition, leading Ms. Fiveash to allege foul play against the bar. Specifically, she claimed they intentionally altered the step to harm her case at trial, leaving her only with the pictures taken of the step’s initial condition. 

It is commonly thought that when an injury occurs, a harmed individual can recover monetary damages for the injuries he or she sustained.  However, if a risk is seen as “open and obvious,” there is a duty on individuals to exercise ordinary care. In some cases, individuals who fail to do this are prevented from recovery even if they are injured.

As she got older, Nancy Morel had difficulties walking and began using a cane after her 2001 knee replacements.  When at a Shell gas station in Metairie, Louisiana, on October 25, 2014, Morel noticed some hoses next to the curb in the entrance of the gas station’s door entrance. Morel walked in the store to pay for her gas. Upon exiting the store, she attempted to move the hoses with her cane, but ended up catching her right foot in the hoses and falling.  Morel brought a lawsuit against the Shell’s station owner, Cheema Properties LLC and Cheema Three LLC (“defendants”) for her injuries sustained in the fall.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, putting forth an argument before the court that the hoses were “open, obvious, and plainly visible” and that they were not an unreasonable risk of harm to an individual exercising ordinary care.  Morel countered by stating that a summary judgment motion should not be granted because there were facts about the situation which her and the defendants disagreed upon, the gas station video surveillance footage was not preserved even after a request by Morel’s attorney to do so, and there was a dispute about the supervision of the employee who left the hoses by the curb.  The district court relied on Morel’s own deposition, and granted the summary judgment motion after finding that the hoses were open and obvious.

Slip and Fall lawsuits commonly arise in the grocery store or restaurant setting.  And in such cases, Louisiana’s statute on merchant liability apprises merchants of how they could be found liable for any resulting injuries.  What happens however when a person falls and injures themselves in a commercial but non-merchant location? Are these lawsuits analyzed under general negligence law?  A recent case involving a hospital in Lake Charles provided an entirely separate standard.           

Ronnaesa Reider was visiting Christus St. Patrick Hospital in Lake Charles, Louisiana when she slipped on an unknown substance and sustained a knee injury.   Just prior to Ms. Reider’s fall, Jamon Thomas, an employee of Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC (“HHS”), used a scrubber machine on the floor where Ms. Reider fell.  Ms. Reider alleged that the machine left water and cleaning fluid on the floor causing Ms. Reider’s fall. Mr. Thomas testified that he noticed a wet streak on the floor and concluded his machine must have failed to dry up the liquid.  However, an unidentified person also stepped on the alleged wet spot just five seconds prior to Ms. Reider and he did not fall.   

Ms. Reider filed a lawsuit against HHS and the Hospital alleging negligence in allowing the liquid to remain on the floor and for failing to warn about the liquid’s presence. Ms. Reider filed a motion for summary judgment against HHS asserting that HHS was completely at fault for the fall.  In support, she included video surveillance showing the scrubber machine in the area just prior to her fall. She also included her own deposition testimony as well as Mr. Thomas’ deposition. In response, HHS asserted the video only showed a clean, clear hallway and that there were inconsistencies in all of the depositions.  Specifically, portions of Mr. Thomas’ deposition asserted there was no liquid at all on the floor. Ms. Reider further provided conflicting accounts of the amount of water on the floor: ranging from a few droplets to a five foot streak.  

Slip and fall cases can have a bad reputation. You know the scenario: Person A slips while on Person B’s floor and sues Person B for everything he has. Oftentimes in this scenario, Person A barely got hurt and may have been able to take steps to have helped prevent the injury. While there are some cases like this that make us ask why people are even allowed to sue in this scenario, there are also cases where people get seriously injured and need to be made whole again. These cases also show that those who allow others onto their property or premises have different responsibilities to ensure that the conditions are reasonably safe. Maintaining these responsibilities is essential so that people can go to these places with the expectation that they can enjoy the premises without worrying if the conditions are hazardous. One example is a slip and fall case that was filed in the 22nd Judicial District Court in Washington Parish, Louisiana.

Grady Wayne Bryant was in a Popeye’s parking lot when he slipped on grease while stepping off the curb. He and his wife filed a lawsuit against the restaurant’s company, Premium Food Concepts, Inc. and its insurer, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. The company denied the Bryant’s allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Bryants could not show that Popeye’s created the grease that caused the accident or that Popeye’s had constructive knowledge of the grease. The District Court decided that the Bryants could not meet their burden of proof under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute and granted the motion for summary judgment. The Bryants appealed to the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit.

What is a motion for summary judgment? When a party files a motion for summary judgment, they are asking for the case to be decided as a matter of law, rather than on the merits. La. C.C.P. art. 966. The party that files the motion—called the mover—does not have to disprove all the elements of the other party’s claim. Instead, the mover just has to show that at least one element is factually weak. Then the non-moving party has the burden to show that the element actually has factual support. If the non-moving party cannot meet this burden, then there is no genuine issue of material fact and summary judgment is granted.