Bryant v. Premium Food Concepts, Inc., 220 So. 3d 79

Plaintiffs Grady Wayne Bryant and Rhonda Patten Bryant sued Premium Food Concepts, Inc. (Popeye’s) after Mr. Bryant slipped on a pile of cooking grease stepping off a curb near the restaurant and was injured.
Popeye’s moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs could not prove the merchant-liability statutory elements—specifically creation or notice (actual or constructive) of the hazardous condition.
The trial court granted summary judgment, finding plaintiffs had not established the temporal element for constructive notice.
On appeal, the court reviewed whether Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute (La. R.S. 9:2800.6) applied and whether Popeye’s met its burden under the summary judgment rule.
The appellate court concluded the grease was located outside the areas covered by section 9:2800.6 (not an aisle, passageway, floor, sidewalk, or parking lot claim) and therefore the statute did not govern the claim raised by the Bryants.
Because Popeye’s motion relied solely on the merchant-liability statute, the court held the motion did not present grounds to dispose of the plaintiffs’ claim and reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether La. R.S. 9:2800.6 applies to this slip-and-fall	Bryant argues the fall was on grease related to the restaurant and within scope of merchant liability	Popeye’s contends the hazardous condition is outside statute’s scope and plaintiffs cannot prove notice/creation	Statute does not apply because grease was on unpaved ground between shrubs, not aisles/passages/floors/parking; Popeye’s motion failed to negate essential element under the motion’s theory
Whether defendant met its summary-judgment burden under art. 966 by negating an essential element of plaintiffs’ claim under §9:2800.6	N/A (plaintiffs must oppose with evidence of notice/creation)	Popeye’s argued absence of proof of actual/constructive notice or creation	Court: Popeye’s did not meet burden because the motion only addressed §9:2800.6, which is inapplicable; summary judgment improper

Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So.3d 607 (La. 2015) (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., 181 So.3d 656 (La. 2015) (scope and duty under merchant-liability statute)
Williams v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 217 So.3d 421 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (applying §9:2800.6 to trip from curb transitioning from sidewalk to parking lot)
Waddles v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 181 So.3d 772 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (applying §9:2800.6 to parking-lot trip and fall)
Davis v. Cheema, Inc., 171 So.3d 984 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (recognizing §9:2800.6 applicability in merchant parking-lot slip-and-fall)