212 So. 3d 713
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff Sybil Alexander tripped and fell on a rubber-edged floor mat in the lobby of Whitney Bank, allegedly catching on a "wave" or "lip," sustaining head and knee injuries.
- She filed suit against Whitney Bank and A-l Services, Inc. (mat supplier).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on liability; the trial court granted both motions.
- Trial court applied the Merchant Liability Act at the hearing, but the appellate court held the Act did not apply because a bank is not a "merchant" under La. R.S. 9:2800.6.
- The appellate court applied La. C.C. art. 2317.1 (negligence for things) instead and required proof of a defect creating an unreasonable risk and that the owner knew or should have known.
- The court concluded Alexander offered only her own after-the-fact, speculative testimony and no corroborating evidence that a defect existed or caused her fall, so summary judgment was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on liability | Alexander: mat had a wave/lip that caused fall; defendants liable | Defendants: no evidence of a hazardous defect or notice; plaintiff's testimony speculative | Affirmed: summary judgment proper — no genuine issue of material fact |
| Which substantive law governs (Merchant Liability Act v. art. 2317.1) | Alexander implied merchant-liability standards may apply | Defendants: bank is not a "merchant" under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 | Held: Merchant Liability Act inapplicable; art. 2317.1 governs |
| Whether a defect was proven | Alexander: observed wave/lip after fall; thus defect existed | Defendants: lack of contemporaneous notice, corroboration, or evidence linking mat to fall | Held: Plaintiff failed to prove a defect or causation; speculation insufficient |
| Whether owner had notice or should have known | Alexander: constructive notice by existence of defect | Defendants: no evidence mat had existed long enough or was observed by staff | Held: No evidence owner knew or should have known; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Amar Oil Co., 110 So.3d 1089 (La. App. 2012) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- King v. Allen Court Apartments II, 185 So.3d 835 (La. App. 2015) (summary judgment procedure and materiality analysis)
- Littlefield v. Iberia Bank, 900 So.2d 925 (La. App. 2005) (patron unable to identify cause of fall; summary judgment affirmed)
- Henry v. NOHSC Houma #1, L.L.C., 97 So.3d 470 (La. App. 2012) (no unreasonable risk shown where plaintiff saw no defect prior to falling)
- Lachico v. First Nat. Bank Shares, Inc., 673 So.2d 305 (La. App. 1996) (bank not a "merchant" under La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
- Todd v. State Through Social Services, Office of Community Services, 699 So.2d 35 (La. 1997) (possibility or speculation insufficient to meet plaintiff's burden)