Articles Posted in Slip and Fall Injuries

Injuries arise in many unexpected ways and locations, even from a trip to the local grocery store. Sometimes this occurs due to a patron’s own clumsiness. Regardless, a grocery store may still be responsible for injuries if the store was negligent, or did not take reasonable actions to fix a known danger. For one Gretna woman, however, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a ruling by the 24th Judicial District Court Parish of Jefferson holding that the grocery store had no responsibility for her injuries.

Around 5:00 P.M. one evening in May, Tami Luft headed to the local Winn-Dixie on Belle Chasse Highway and Wall Boulevard to purchase chips and bread. After she picked up her chips, Ms. Luft made her way to the bread section when she suddenly tripped on a piece of plastic that supported a bottom shelf in the chip aisle. The store manager, Mr. Lollis, helped Ms. Luft up, she finished her shopping, and then she went home. Nearly a year later in April, Ms. Luft filed a lawsuit against Winn-Dixie, claiming negligence for creating the hazardous condition that caused her injuries. The district court ruled in favor of Winn-Dixie, so Ms. Luft appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the ruling.

To sue for negligence resulting from injury on a merchant’s property, Ms. Luft had to prove three elements under Louisiana law. La. R.S.9:2800.6(B). First, there had to be “an unreasonable risk of harm” that was also “reasonably foreseeable.” Second, Winn-Dixie had to either have created or “had actual or constructive notice of the condition which caused the damage” before the accident occurred. Third, Winn-Dixie had to fail in exercising “reasonable care.” Here, Ms. Luft had the burden of proof, meaning that to win her case she needed to prove each element. For Winn-Dixie to win the case, it only needed to refute one element. The element Winn-Dixie focused on was the second, claiming that the store neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the danger posed to Ms. Luft by the plastic support.

Public entities are treated as private entities when it comes to slip and fall situations. They must abide by a liability standard when a customer or employee slip and fall on their premises. The standard gives the public entity responsibility for things that they control. The standard is similar to the standard used in cases of slip and fall. In this case, the court considered whether a slip and fall on a public entity’s premises can lead to liability. 

  The Grotes were at a conference at the River Center Convention Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana when Mrs. Grote tripped and fell on an elevation of one inch between two concrete walkway near the entrance of the River Center. After the incident, the Grotes filed a petition for damages against SMG, Federal Insurance Co., and the City of Baton Rouge. They argued that the defendants were liable for damages from the injury. The Grotes then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the defect in the sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous. After the Grotes’ summary judgment, the City filed a summary judgment stating that the sidewalk was not unreasonably dangerous and was open and obvious. 

In cases of slip and falls with a public entity, a motion for summary judgment is properly granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions show that there are no genuine issues as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The mover bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to summary judgment. He has the responsibility to demonstrate the absence of factual support for one or more essential elements of his opponent’s claim. La. C.C.P. art. 966. If the mover fails to prove his burden, the burden never shifts to the adverse party, and the mover is not entitled to summary judgment. LeBlanc v. Bouchereau Oil Co., Inc., 15 So. 3d 152 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Although many people are aware that merchants are required to keep their premises reasonably safe, it can be complicated to establish what exactly constitutes unreasonable risk. 

While on a shopping trip at the Mall of Louisiana, Hermina Lavergne, her daughter, and her granddaughter, stopped at BJ’s Restaurant (“BJ’s”) to eat. As the group was being escorted to their table, Lavergne fell down several steps, severely injuring her right foot. The host had advised Lavergne’s daughter and granddaughter to watch their step; however, Lavergne did not hear the warning herself because she was reading the restaurant’s menu as she walked. 

Lavergne filed a lawsuit to recover damages, alleging that Lavergne was injured due to a lack of adequate lighting and a lack of warning about the steps. The trial court found that the steps presented an unreasonable risk of harm, but also found that Lavergne failed to exercise reasonable care as she walked to the table. BJ’s appealed the finding, arguing that the step was not unreasonably dangerous.

Slip and falls are one of the most common accidents in the United States.  Though some slip and falls may only lead to a sense of embarrassment, others can lead to permanent and serious damage to the body. Thus, it makes sense that an establishment owner should ensure that his or her establishment is safe. However, it is also important that people who visit an establishment should be responsible and not behave recklessly. In order to achieve this through law, Louisiana has an “open and obvious” doctrine, which states that an establishment is not responsible for people who were injured due to an open and obvious defect at the establishment. 

While out for some exercise at the Acadiana Mall in Lafayette, Wilson Trahan slipped and fell on a sidewalk, fracturing his right fibula. Trahan apparently slipped on a buildup of algae while trying to avoid a surface of water on the sidewalk. Trahan sued Acadiana Mall, but the district court dismissed his lawsuit. Trahan appealed, and the Court of Appeal ordered the district court to retake Trahan’s case for further proceedings. However, the district court ruled in favor of Acadiana Mall, holding that the algae buildup was open and obvious and that Trahan did not have a legitimate claim. Trahan appealed once more to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal, arguing that the district court erred in using the open and obvious doctrine to rule in favor of Acadiana Mall. 

Under Louisiana law, an owner or custodian is responsible for a thing under his or her control and that an owner or custodian is responsible for any damage that the thing causes due to the negligence of the owner or custodian. La. C.C. art. 2317.1. For a plaintiff to successfully prove their claim, he or she must show: (1) that the defendant owned the thing that caused the damage; (2) that the thing had a defect and presented an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) that the defendant should have known about the defect; (4) that the defect could have been prevented if the defendant had taken reasonable care; and (5) that the defendant did not take reasonable care. Riggs v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Trust Auth., 997 So.2d 814 (La. App. Ct. 2008). However, if the defect is open and obvious, there is not an unreasonable risk of harm. Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Bldgs., 113 So.3d 175 (La. 2013). 

When customers slip and fall at a store, they expect to be able to recover for their injuries. However, recovery can become complicated when multiple parties were involved in maintaining the premises, such as when the store outsources with another company to provide maintenance services at the store. 

Mr. Terry Collins and his wife Lainie Collins (the Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Home Depot in Gretna, Louisiana and ISS Facility Services, Inc. (the Defendants) after Mr. Collins slipped and fell on a liquid on the floor in a lumber aisle at the store. On the day of the accident, maintenance workers from ISS Facility Services were operating a floor cleaning machine near the site of the accident. 

Home Depot filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the Collins could not satisfy the required burden of proof for claims against merchants in showing that Home Depot had either created, or had notice of the liquid substance that allegedly caused the accident. See La. R.S. 9:2800.6. The trial court granted Home Depot’s motion for summary judgment, stating that ISS was an independent contractor, so that Home Depot had not created the alleged dangerous condition. Furthermore, the Collins had not provided sufficient proof that Home Depot had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.