gets.primecure.net

Tag: 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.

  • 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