Brown v. Amar Oil Co., 110 So. 3d 1089

Plaintiffs Judy N. Brown and John W. Brown sued Amar Oil Co. d/b/a Swifty’s Food Mart No. 15 and its insurer for injuries after Ms. Brown fell December 2006 in Swifty’s doorway due to a dangerous condition.
The dangerous condition was a turned-up floor mat at Swifty’s doorway.
Defendants moved for summary judgment under LSA-R.S. 9:2800.6 in 2010, asserting plaintiffs could not prove essential elements.
Trial court granted summary judgment on May 18, 2011, dismissing the claims.
Appellate review was de novo, assessing whether there was no genuine issue of material fact and the mover was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove constructive notice and that the mat posed no ascertainable unreasonable risk without more evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constructive notice of the condition	Brown argued Swifty’s knew or should have known	Swifty’s showed lack of constructive notice	Constructive notice not shown; no genuine issue
Unreasonable risk of the mat	Mat created an unreasonable risk	No evidence mat posed unreasonable risk	Court held no material issue; no unreasonable risk proven
Causation of the fall	Fall caused by mat condition	Fall not proven to be due to condition	Plaintiffs failed to show causation; affirmed

White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La.1997) (temporal element for notice in 9:2800.6 analysis)
Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 708 So.2d 362 (La.1998) (unreasonable risk determination fact-specific)
Williams v. Shoney’s, Inc., 764 So.2d 1021 (La.App.1st Cir.2000) (temporal element not fixed; fact question)
Pugh v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 994 So.2d 95 (La.App.1st Cir.2008) (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La.1994) (materiality and summary judgment standards)
Collins v. Randall, 836 So.2d 352 (La.App.1st Cir.2002) (standard for summary judgment de novo review)