Amanda Riggio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated
850 F.3d 742
5th Cir.2017Background
- Amanda Riggio slipped and fell in a Wal‑Mart in Sept. 2012; she alleged she slipped on water that leaked from the store roof. Her sister witnessed the fall; an employee retrieved a wheelchair and a manager completed an incident report noting "small drops of water" and "rainy" weather.
- Parties agree the store had roof leaks but dispute scope and timing: Riggio says the roof was chronically leaky across the store; Wal‑Mart says leaks were limited to areas under newly installed skylights and had been repaired.
- Evidence supporting Riggio: manager Chester’s testimony that leaks existed before skylights were installed and that new leaks were appearing; photos showing buckets/caution signs in the store near the time of the incident; a bill labeled "roof recover" and a post‑incident full roof repair; expert affidavit (Steven Arabie) opining the roof was failing based on records and experience.
- Wal‑Mart argued Riggio could not prove the water originated from the roof or that Wal‑Mart created or had notice of the hazardous condition under La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.6(B).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart; the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding genuine disputes of material fact existed as to causation (source of the water) and whether Wal‑Mart created the hazardous condition by maintaining the roof.
Issues
| Issue | Riggio's Argument | Wal‑Mart's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reasonable jury could find the water came from the roof and caused Riggio’s fall | Evidence of rain, manager testimony, photos, and expert opinion support inference that a generally leaky roof caused the puddle | No direct proof tying the puddle to the roof; leaks were isolated and repaired | Reversed: disputed material facts permit a jury to find the roof leak caused the fall |
| Whether negligent roof maintenance can constitute "creation" of a hazardous condition under La. R.S. § 9:2800.6(B)(2) | Failure to maintain/repair the roof that led to puddles amounts to creating the hazardous condition | Creation requires direct employee action or otherwise some showing beyond mere failure to repair; otherwise statute would be strict liability | Reversed: Louisiana law treats maintenance responsibility as creating the hazard; jury could find Wal‑Mart created the condition |
| Whether plaintiff must prove merchant had notice regardless of creation theory | Creation by maintaining the area excuses separate notice requirement | Merchant must have actual or constructive notice in all cases | Court: No—proof of creation obviates the notice element under the statute |
| Admissibility/weight of expert affidavit based on records and experience without site inspection | Expert testimony based on records and experience can be credited to infer roof failure | Expert lacked first‑hand inspection so affidavit is unreliable | Court: Expert need not have first‑hand inspection; similar precedent allowed such testimony for jury consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P., 716 F.3d 867 (5th Cir. 2013) (expert may base opinion on experience and review of deposition/records without first‑hand inspection)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Bearb v. Wal‑Mart La., L.L.C., [citation="534 F. App'x 264"] (5th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment where only speculative evidence linked skylight leak to puddle)
- Gray v. Wal‑Mart La., L.L.C., [citation="484 F. App'x 963"] (5th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff failed where record lacked evidence that store maintained its own roof or employees caused the leak)
- Ross v. Schwegmann Giant Super Markets, Inc., 734 So. 2d 910 (La. Ct. App.) ("created" means merchant is directly responsible for the hazardous condition)
- Savoie v. Sw. La. Hosp. Ass'n, 866 So. 2d 1078 (La. Ct. App.) (when a defendant maintains the area where the hazard occurs, maintenance can constitute creation of the hazard)