gets.primecure.net

Category: Slip and Fall

  • Stairway to Dismissal: Missed Deadline Leads to Summary Judgment in Injury Case

    This case focuses on the procedural aspects of a personal injury lawsuit, highlighting the importance of deadlines and the consequences of missing them.

    Case Background

    Charles and Jeri Kouba sued the City of Natchitoches after Mr. Kouba fell on a staircase owned by the city. They alleged a defect in the staircase caused his injuries. The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Koubas opposed. However, they missed the deadline to file their opposition and requested a continuance (postponement) of the hearing. The trial court denied their request and granted summary judgment in favor of the City.

    Motion to Continue

    The Koubas argued that they needed more time to gather evidence and expert opinions to oppose the summary judgment motion. However, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of their continuance request. Here’s why:

    • Missed Deadline: The Koubas missed the statutory deadline to file their opposition to the summary judgment motion.
    • Purpose of Continuance: The court explained that the purpose of allowing continuances in summary judgment proceedings is to give parties time to comply with deadlines, not to excuse missed deadlines.
    • Lack of Good Cause: The Koubas’ reason for missing the deadline was their attorney’s calendaring error, which the court did not consider a sufficient “good cause” for a continuance.

    Summary Judgment

    The court then reviewed the summary judgment ruling itself, applying the same standards as the trial court:

    • Burden of Proof: The City, as the moving party, had the burden to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
    • Premises Liability: In Louisiana, to hold a public entity liable for an injury on its property, a plaintiff must prove several elements, including that the property was defective, the defect posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity had notice of the defect.
    • Lack of Evidence: The court found that the Koubas failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the City’s knowledge of any defect in the staircase.

    Exclusion of Evidence

    The Koubas also argued that the trial court erred in excluding photographs they attempted to introduce. However, the court found no error because the Koubas had missed the deadline to file these photographs with their opposition to the summary judgment.

    Key Takeaways

    • Deadlines Matter: Meeting procedural deadlines is crucial in legal proceedings. Failure to do so can have serious consequences.
    • Summary Judgment Standards: Summary judgment can be a powerful tool to resolve cases efficiently when there are no genuine factual disputes.
    • Premises Liability: Proving a premises liability claim against a public entity requires evidence of a defect, an unreasonable risk of harm, and the entity’s knowledge of the defect.

    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, upholding the denial of the continuance and the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. This case underscores the importance of diligence in meeting procedural deadlines and the necessity of presenting sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment motion.

  • Who’s Responsible When a Step Collapses?

    The following case deals with a common scenario: a guest gets injured at a business and sues, alleging negligence. But the legal outcome hinges on a crucial factor – whether the business owner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition that caused the injury.

    Case Summary

    Melanie Mark was injured when a wooden step on a cabin staircase collapsed at a KOA campground in Lafayette, Louisiana. She sued KOA, claiming they were negligent in maintaining the property. However, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of KOA, finding that Ms. Mark failed to prove KOA had any knowledge of the defect in the stairs. Ms. Mark appealed this decision.

    Legal Principles

    The court’s decision revolved around Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317.1, which deals with premises liability. Here’s the key takeaway:

    Knowledge is Key: Property owners are only liable for injuries caused by defects if they knew, or should have known, about the defect and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the damage.
    The court also considered the duty of care owed by innkeepers to their guests:

    Innkeeper’s Duty: Innkeepers have a heightened duty to ensure their premises are safe and to warn guests of any hidden dangers. This includes conducting reasonable inspections.
    The Court’s Analysis

    The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found no indication that KOA knew or should have known about the rotten step. Here’s why:

    No Prior Complaints: KOA had no record of any prior complaints or issues with the stairs.
    Regular Maintenance and Inspections: KOA conducted regular maintenance and yearly inspections, and no defects were found.
    Hidden Defect: The rot was hidden on the underside of the step, making it difficult to detect even with a reasonable inspection.
    Plaintiff’s Own Testimony: Ms. Mark herself testified that the stairs appeared fine and safe when she used them before the accident.
    Based on this, the court concluded that KOA did not breach its duty of care and was not liable for Ms. Mark’s injuries.

    Important Considerations

    This case highlights some important aspects of premises liability law:

    Burden of Proof: The injured party bears the burden of proving the property owner’s knowledge of the defect.
    Constructive Knowledge: Even if the owner didn’t have actual knowledge, they can still be liable if they should have known about the defect through reasonable care.
    Hidden Defects: Liability is less likely when the defect is hidden and not readily discoverable.
    Outcome

    The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment in favor of KOA. This means Ms. Mark’s case was dismissed, and she was responsible for the costs of the appeal.

    This case serves as a reminder that proving negligence in premises liability cases requires demonstrating the property owner’s knowledge of the dangerous condition. When a defect is hidden and there’s no evidence the owner knew or should have known about it, it’s difficult to establish liability.

  • Too Late to Sue: Court Upholds Prescription in Construction Site Injury Case

    In a ruling emphasizing the critical importance of adhering to legal deadlines, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of a personal injury lawsuit due to prescription, leaving the injured plaintiff without recourse. In the case, the court affirmed a trial court judgment that dismissed Tammy Blanchard’s personal injury claims due to prescription or the expiration of the time limit for filing a lawsuit.

    In 2015, Ms. Blanchard filed a lawsuit alleging she was injured while walking on a grassy pathway to Gerry’s Place, a business in Jefferson Parish. She claimed she tripped over concrete debris left by contractors working on a nearby drainage canal project. The initial lawsuit named several defendants, including Gerry’s Place, Jefferson Parish entities, and an unnamed contractor referred to as “ABC Contractors.”

    Later, Ms. Blanchard amended her petition to add Fleming Construction Company, LLC, and Shavers-Whittle Construction, LLC, as defendants after discovering their involvement in the construction project. However, these amended petitions were filed more than a year after the injury occurred.

    The Issue of Prescription

    Fleming and Shavers-Whittle filed an exception to prescription, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred because the amended petitions were filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period for personal injury cases in Louisiana. Ms. Blanchard countered, invoking the doctrine of contra non valentine, which can suspend the running of prescriptions under certain circumstances.

    Trial Court’s Ruling

    The trial court granted the exception of prescription, dismissing the claims against Fleming and Shavers-Whittle. It reasoned that the amended petitions were filed too late and that Ms. Blanchard failed to demonstrate that she exercised reasonable diligence in identifying and naming the correct defendants within the prescriptive period.

    Court of Appeal’s Affirmation

    The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It emphasized that once a petition is prescribed on its face, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that prescription has been suspended or interrupted. In this case, Ms. Blanchard failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim of contra non valentem.  

    The court noted publicly available information about the construction project and the involved contractors. Ms. Blanchard could have exercised reasonable diligence to identify the correct parties within the one-year prescriptive period. Her failure to do so resulted in her claims being time-barred.

    Key Takeaways

    This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of adhering to legal deadlines. In Louisiana, the prescriptive period for personal injury cases is one year. If you fail to file your lawsuit within this timeframe, you may lose your right to seek compensation for your injuries.

    The doctrine of contra non valentine can potentially suspend prescriptions under certain circumstances, such as when the plaintiff is prevented from filing suit due to factors beyond their control. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing their claim.   

    If you have been injured, it is critical to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to ensure that your legal rights are protected and that you file your lawsuit within the applicable prescriptive period. Delaying legal action can have severe consequences, as illustrated in this case.

    Remember: Time is of the essence in personal injury cases. Don’t let the clock run out on your right to seek justice.

    Additional Sources: Tammy Blanchard v. Gerry’s Place, Inc., et al.,

    Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Articles on Prescription: Louisiana Court Upholds Prescription in Wrongful Death Suit, Highlights Joint Tortfeasor Rule and The Clock is Ticking: Understanding Prescription in Louisiana Personal Injury Cases

  • Slipping in Stores: When Does the Store’s Responsibility Kick In?

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent Louisiana Court of Appeal case of Barton v. Walmart highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2016, Douglas Barton was shopping at a Walmart store in Alexandria, Louisiana, during a rainy day. As he entered the store, he slipped on a wet spot on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. He sued Walmart, claiming they were negligent in maintaining a safe environment for their customers.

    Walmart denied liability, arguing that they had no knowledge of the wet spot and that it likely occurred moments before Barton entered the store due to the wind blowing rain inside. They presented evidence of an inspection conducted earlier that morning, which had not noted any hazards.

    Barton countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the wetness, which he believed to be condensation, had likely been there for a while. He pointed out that he had been in the area for some time and hadn’t seen anyone else slip or create the wet spot. He asserted that Walmart had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially ruled in favor of Walmart, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Barton’s case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

    The appeals court focused on the issue of “constructive notice,” a legal concept that holds a merchant liable if a hazard existed for a long enough time that they should have reasonably discovered and addressed it. The court found that Barton had presented enough evidence to raise a genuine question about how long the wet spot had been on the floor.

    The specific evidence the court pointed to was:

    • The moisture was present before Barton fell.
    • Barton was in the area for a while and didn’t see anyone else there.
    • The moisture wasn’t near any products that could have recently spilled.

    Because Barton presented this evidence, the appeals court decided a jury should determine whether Walmart had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Barton’s injuries.

    Things to Remember: 

    • In slip-and-fall cases, the injured party is required to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing that the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it.
    • Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it.
    • The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options. They can help you gather evidence, build a strong case, and fight for the compensation you deserve.

    Remember, the law is on your side if you can prove the merchant’s negligence. Don’t let a slip-and-fall accident leave you with lasting physical and financial burdens.

    Additional Sources: DOUGLAS W. BARTON VERSUS WAL-MART STORES, INC. 

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Other Berniard Law Firm Blog Articles on Slip and Fall Lawsuits in Louisiana: When Are Stairs An Unreasonably Unsafe Condition? and When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

  • When a Slip and Fall Isn’t Just an Accident: Understanding Merchant Liability

    We’ve all heard the phrase “slip and fall,” often in a comedic context. However, slip-and-fall accidents can result in severe injuries and legal battles. The recent case of Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC, highlights the complexities of such cases and what it takes to prove a merchant’s liability.

    In 2013, Daisy Foto was shopping at a Rouse’s store in Louisiana. She slipped on a clear liquid on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries. Foto sued Rouse’s, claiming they were responsible for her injuries because they either created the hazardous condition, knew about it, or should have known about it.

    Rouse’s argued they had no liability because Foto couldn’t prove they created the spill, knew about it beforehand, or that it had been there long enough for them to reasonably discover and clean it up. They presented evidence of a store inspection conducted earlier that morning, showing no hazards were noted.

    Foto countered, arguing that the inspection was inadequate and that the spill had likely been there for some time, given that she had been in the aisle for about ten minutes and didn’t see anyone else. She argued this was enough to establish that Rouse’s had “constructive notice” of the hazard—meaning they should have known about it.

    The trial court initially sided with Rouse’s, granting them summary judgment and dismissing Foto’s case. However, an appeals court reversed that decision. The appeals court determined that Foto had presented enough evidence to create a genuine question about how long the spill had been on the floor. The specific evidence the appeals court pointed to was the following;

    1. The liquid was present on Aisle 12 before Foto fell.
    2. Foto was on the aisle for about 10 minutes before falling, and no one else was there.
    3. The liquid wasn’t near similar products, suggesting it didn’t spill recently.

    Because Foto presented that evidence in her opposition to Rouses’ motion, the appeals court felt a jury should decide whether Rouse had constructive notice of the hazard and was liable for Foto’s injuries.

    In slip and fall cases, the burden is on the injured party to prove the merchant was negligent. This usually means showing the merchant created the hazard, knew about it, or should have known about it. Even if a merchant didn’t directly create a hazard or know about it, they can still be liable if it existed for a long enough time that they should have discovered and addressed it. The outcome of these cases often hinges on evidence about how long the hazard existed, any witnesses, and the store’s policies and procedures for inspections and maintenance.

    Slip and fall cases can be complex. If you’ve been injured in a slip and fall accident, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney to understand your rights and options.

    Additional Sources: Foto v. Rouse’s Enterprises, LLC

    Written by Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Injury Premise Liablity: Construction Worker’s Electrocuted Injury Leads to Dispute Among Defendants Over Liability

  • Injured Shreveport Worker’s Claim Saved from Dismissal on Summary Judgment in Case Involving an Allegedly Open and Obvious Hazard

    David Cox delivered four pallets of shirk-wrapped material for his employer, Southwestern Motor Transport, in June 2012. The delivery location was the Baker Distributing Company warehouse in Shreveport, Louisiana. Baker’s delivery dock did not have a dock plate. A dock plate is a metal bridge connecting a truck’s back to the loading dock. There is an empty space between the back of the truck and the loading dock without a dock plate. In addition, Cox found that the loading dock was cluttered with several objects. Due to this clutter, Cox could not use a forklift to unload the truck.

    Working alone, Cox managed to get two pallets off the truck with a pallet jack but then used a dolly for the last two pallets. While attempting to get the previous pallet off the truck, Cox’s foot became wedged between the dock and the truck, causing him to fall on his back. Cox filed a lawsuit as a result of being injured.

    In the lawsuit Cox alleged that this fall caused him to have permanent injuries that made him disabled. The injury resulted in Cox receiving worker’s compensation benefits. Cox filed a lawsuit against Baker, arguing that the lack of a working dock plate made the dock unreasonably dangerous, that the lack of a dock plate was not easily visible to parties making deliveries to the warehouse, and that Baker had a duty to provide a safe entrance for parties unloading at the dock.

    Baker filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Cox was aware of the lack of a dock plate; this made the hazard open and evident to Cox, thereby insulating Baker from liability for his injuries. The trial court, concluding that the lack of a dock plate was open and obvious to individuals using the loading dock, granted Baker’s motion. 

    A hazard is considered open and obvious when the danger is clear to all who may encounter the hazard. Generally, a defendant is not obligated to protect against an open and obvious risk. Hutchinson v. Knights of Columbus, 866 So.2d 235 (La. 2004). On appeal by Cox, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal for Louisiana acknowledged that the lack of a dock plate was evident to anyone attempting to unload items on the warehouse dock. However, in its view, the overall condition of the dock should also have been assessed when the trial court considered Baker’s motion for summary judgment.

    The Court of Appeal specifically mentioned that other relevant factors — such as the gap between the truck and the dock, the cluttered loading dock area, the inability of a forklift to maneuver the area, and the lack of assistance available to Cox — could have influenced one’s perception of the hazard. Because the trial court did not consider these additional factors, the Court of Appeal held that the decision to grant Baker’s summary judgment motion was improper. Therefore, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and remanded the case for reconsideration. 

    Louisiana law insulates premises owners from liability for injuries resulting from open and obvious hazards, showing that the owner of a building is not responsible for every misfortune that a visitor may encounter. Anyone who has suffered an injury on someone else’s property should seek an attorney experienced in premises liability to determine if the facts of the situation establish responsibility on the property owner’s part.

    Additional Sources:  COX v. BAKER DIST. CO., L.L.C.

    Written by Berniard Law Firm  

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Articles on Workers Compensation:  Is Your Employer Liable If You Fall In The Parking Lot?

  • Can a business be liable if a patron slips and falls on a wet walkway?

    Lawsuits involving slip and fall accidents are widespread. However, specific requirements must be satisfied to prevail in a slip-and-fall case. The following lawsuit helps answer the question: Can a business be held liable if a patron slips and falls on a wet walkway? 

    While walking with her son in the Treasure Chest Casino parking lot, Linda Cangelosi slipped and fell under the outdoor tent that covered part of the walkway entrance into the casino. Cangelosi slipped while stepping from the roadway to the walkway. At the time of her fall, the ground was wet, with puddles. After he fell, employees of Treasure Chest Casino assisted Cangelosi and called an emergency team. Cangelosi declined their offer to transport her to the hospital and continued to the casino. However, about 45 minutes later, she left because her hip hurt. She consulted with a doctor, who provided her with pain medication. Since the accident, Cangelosi had to use a walker and has been in pain. Cangelosi filed a lawsuit against Treasure Chest Casino. Both Cangelosi and Treasure Chest Casino filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Treasure Chest Casino’s summary judgment motion. Cangelosi appealed. 

    Under La. C.C. art. 2317, the owner of a thing is liable for damage if they knew or should have known about the defect that causes damage, which could have been prevented if the owner had exercised reasonable care. Further, under La. C.C. art. 2322, this also applies to building owners. Therefore, if Cangelosi provided sufficient evidence that Treasure Chest Casino knew or should have known about the wet walkway that caused her slip and did not act reasonably, she could prevail in her lawsuit.

    On appeal, Cangelosi argued the casino’s walkway was unreasonably dangerous and defective, which resulted in her fall. She claimed there was a hazardous condition from the passing vehicles and improper drainage. She claimed her allegation there were all kinds of debris and liquids was sufficient to establish there was a hazardous condition. Treasure Chest Casino countered Cangelosi did not provide sufficient evidence to prove there was an unreasonable dangerous condition they failed to warn patrons about. Treasure Chest Casino specifically pointed to a non-skid product it used on its walkways.

    Additionally, Cangelosi and her son testified they knew the ground was wet because it had rained most of the day. A video of Cangelosi’s fall showed she stepped directly into a puddle, which the appellate court explained was an obvious hazard. Thus, Treasure Chest Casino had adequately supported its summary judgment motion with evidence its walk was not defective. In contrast, Cangelosi had not provided evidence of an unreasonably dangerous condition that caused her fall. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s grant of Treasure Chest Casino’s summary judgment motion because there were no disputes of material facts. 

    This case at the Treasure Chest Casino highlights the importance of establishing liability in such incidents. While Cangelosi argued that the casino’s walkway was unreasonably dangerous and defective, the appellate court ultimately found that she had not provided sufficient evidence to support her claim. The court’s decision underscored the importance of addressing the presence of clear hazards and the responsibility of business owners to ensure a safe environment for patrons. If you find yourself in a similar situation, seeking legal counsel is crucial to understanding your potential for success in a lawsuit against the establishment.

    Additional Sources: Linda Cangelosi v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC

    Article Written By Berniard Law Firm

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Slip and Fall Accidents: Slip and Fall in Louisiana Convenience Store Lawsuit Discusses Open and Obvious Risk

  • Understanding Open and Obvious Defects: Implications for Personal Injury Claims

    When it comes to personal injury claims resulting from slips, trips, or falls, the concept of open and obvious defects plays a significant role. Failing to act reasonably or being harmed by an apparent defect may hinder your ability to recover compensation for your injuries. This case exemplifies the importance of these factors in determining liability.

    Ray Eskine was a permanently disabled individual who used a walker to move around.  When trying to see how long the grass was on his lot across the street, he walked across an elevated walkway in front of his house. One of the wheels on his walker slipped, causing him to fall into a ditch and get injured. 

    Eskine and his wife filed a lawsuit against the City of Gretna and its insurer, claiming the walkway was defective and presented an unreasonably dangerous condition. They claimed the City of Gretna was responsible for the care of the walkway and had knowledge of the defective condition that resulted in his injury. 

    The City of Gretna filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the Eskines could not show the walkway’s condition created an unreasonable risk of harm. Additionally, the City of Gretna argued the walkway’s condition was open and obvious, and Eskine did not exercise reasonable care in walking on it. Eskine claimed the walkway was defective because it was too narrow, had too much slope, was uneven, and the asphalt was breaking off. He said over the past twenty years, during which he had been using his walker, he had only walked over the at-issue walkway two or three times. He conceded nothing prevented him from seeing the walkway’s condition at the time of the incident. 

    A City of Gretna employee submitted an affidavit stating he was unaware of any prior complaints regarding the walkway-s condition. The trial court granted the City of Gretna’s summary judgment motion. The Eskines appealed.

    The Eskines argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna. They claimed there was a hidden defect in the walkway as it was not apparent it was too narrow. The City of Gretna claimed the walkway’s condition was open and obvious, and the appellate court agreed. Here, Eskine indicated he knew the location and condition of the at-issue walkway in front of his house. The evidence indicated that Eskine and anyone else could see the width of the walkway before deciding to walk there. The appellate court explained a reasonable person like Eskine, who used a walker, should not have tried to cross the walkway. Therefore, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna. 

    In personal injury cases involving hazardous conditions, the presence of open and obvious defects can significantly impact the outcome. If a defect is apparent and a reasonable person should have been aware of it, it may hinder the injured party’s ability to recover damages. In this case, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s decision, noting that the condition of the walkway was open and obvious. Since Eskine was aware of the walkway’s condition and chose to walk on it despite its apparent defects, the court concluded that he did not exercise reasonable care. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the City of Gretna was upheld.

    Consulting with a knowledgeable attorney is crucial if you have suffered harm due to a dangerous or defective condition. They can guide you on the necessary evidence to support your claim, assess the viability of your case, and help you navigate the complexities of personal injury law. By seeking legal advice, you can better understand your rights and options to pursue the compensation you deserve.

    Additional Sources: Ray Eskine and Sondra Eskine v. The City of Gretna

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Open and Obvious Conditions: Popular Baton Rouge Shopping Center Avoids Liability for “Open and Obvious” Sidewalk Danger

  • Supermarket Not Liable For Slip-and-Fall Because Of Lack Of Constructive Notice

    When you make a quick run to the store, the last thing you expect is to be injured while shopping. If you slip and fall at a store, you might expect the store to be responsible for any injuries you might have suffered. However, Louisiana law requires that a store have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition to be held liable. Therefore, if you are considering filing a lawsuit against a store for a slip-and-fall accident, it is essential to provide evidence of the store’s knowledge so your claim does not get dismissed.  

    Quentella Batiste was shopping with her granddaughter at Vernon’s Supermarket in Lutcher, Louisiana. Batiste slipped and fell in a puddle of water in the beer and beverage aisle as she was headed to check out at the front of the store. She injured her shoulder, which required surgery. Batiste and her husband filed a lawsuit against Vernon’s Supermarket and its insurer.

    Vernon’s Supermarket filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the Batistes could not prove Vernon’s Supermarket created or actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition of the purported water on the floor, as required under the Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.6. Vernon’s Supermarket provided deposition testimony where Baptiste said she did not know where the substance she slipped on came from, how long it had been there, or whether anyone at the store knew the substance was present before she fell. They also provided surveillance footage and testimony from several employees to support Vernon Supermarket’s claim no one knew about the substance before Batiste’s fall. 

    The Batistes argued the store had constructive notice because they had not performed a floor check the hour before the accident, which violated the store’s policies and showed they had not exercised reasonable care. The trial court granted Vernon Supermarket’s summary judgment motion. The Batistes appealed. 

    An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment motions de novo, which means it uses the same criteria as a trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact. See La. C.C.P. 966.

    Under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the plaintiff (here the Batistes) has the burden to prove there was a condition with an unreasonable risk of harm that was reasonably foreseeable; the merchant created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition, and the merchant failed to exercise reasonable care. Here, the Batistes did not provide any positive evidence that Vernon’s Supermarket knew about the condition for a period of time before the accident.

    Further, store employees testified they had not seen a wet substance on the floor. In her deposition, Batiste did not provide evidence in support and testified she did not know specifics about the substance or how long it had been there. Although the Batistes claimed the store’s failure to complete a floor check put it on notice, the appellate court found this insufficient to satisfy the Batiste’s burden of proof. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Vernon’s Supermarket’s summary judgment motion.

    When pursuing a slip-and-fall claim against a store, it’s essential to understand the burden of proof imposed by Louisiana law. Demonstrating that the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition is crucial to a successful claim. Consulting with a knowledgeable lawyer can help you gather evidence to strengthen your case. 

    Additional Sources: Quentella Batiste and Hayward Batiste v. United Fire and Casualty Company, Veron’s Supermarket LLC and Greg Vernon

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Constructive Notice: Slip-and-fall Lawsuit Dismissed for Lack of Actual or Constructive Notice

  • A Slippery Case: How a Lease Agreement Swayed a Personal Injury Lawsuit Against a Medical Facility

    Imagine attending a routine medical appointment at your local doctor’s office. You enter the premises expecting a standard check-up, but unexpectedly, you trip over a defective threshold and fall onto a hard terrazzo floor. This unsettling scenario is precisely what Lois J. Tate encountered in their accident, sparking a personal injury action against Touro Infirmary and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Touro Infirmary, and Louisiana Children’s Medical Center.

    In a life-altering event, Tate tripped over what she claimed to be a defective threshold at the office of Dr. Shelton Barnes. The office was located in a building leased from Touro Infirmary. This unexpected fall led to injuries, which prompted Tate to file a lawsuit for damages based on negligence and strict liability against the defendants, including Touro Infirmary, Louisiana Children’s Medical Center, and Dr. Shelton Barnes. Tate’s claim encountered a significant challenge when the Trial Court granted summary judgment favoring the defendants. Tate could not prove a crucial element of her claim—Touro’s knowledge of the alleged defect. Undeterred, Tate appealed the decision.

    Under Louisiana law, a summary judgment is applied when there’s no genuine dispute regarding a critical fact that could influence the relief a litigant seeks. To successfully contest a summary judgment, a plaintiff cannot only rely on allegations or speculation. They must present substantial proof of a genuine issue of material fact. For Tate, this involved demonstrating Touro’s awareness of the defect. Simon v. Hillensbeck.

    Touro Infirmary and Dr. Barnes, the tenant, had entered a lease agreement, which explicitly stated Barnes accepted the premises “as is” with any defects. Additionally, Barnes would bear all responsibility for incidents resulting from alleged defects. This is permitted under Louisiana law as it supports the contractual shift of responsibility from the owner to the lessee, as long as the owner didn’t know or hadn’t been notified of the defect. LA Rev Stat § 9:3221.

    Legally, Touro Infirmary transferred any maintenance duty for the premises to Barnes through the lease agreement. No evidence indicated Touro knew of the alleged defect before Tate’s unfortunate accident. Consequently, the Court of Appeals ruled Touro was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the Trial Court’s decision was upheld.

    This case highlights the importance of understanding the fine details of lease agreements. It emphasizes the plaintiff’s need to substantiate all components of a claim when alleging negligence and strict liability. Good lawyers and attorneys comprehend these intricacies, making them excellent counsel and representation for their clients in complex personal injury lawsuits. The Court of Appeal reinforced the legal principle that a plaintiff must substantiate all aspects of her claim to prevail. 

    Overall, the case underscores the complexities of determining fault in personal injury cases. It serves as a stark reminder for all parties to be acutely aware of the agreements they enter. Likewise, it stresses the importance of retaining advice from experienced legal attorneys when navigating such complex scenarios.

    Additional Sources: Tate v. Touro Infirmary, Et Al

    Written by Brian Nguyen

    Additional Berniard Law Firm Article on Lease Agreement Issues: The High Cost of Overlooking Fine Print: A Cautionary Tale of Settlements and Release Forms