267 So. 3d 738
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- In Dec. 2004 Carl Edgefield (deliveryman) alleges he slipped on grease at Audubon Golf Clubhouse and injured his back; suit filed Dec. 2005 against Audubon entities and insurer.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in 2017 arguing Edgefield had no admissible factual support beyond his self‑serving testimony; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
- Eight days later Edgefield moved for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence (a witness, Clubhouse plans, and an expert report); the trial court denied the motion.
- On initial appeal the appellate court treated the appeal as review of the new‑trial denial and denied relief; the Louisiana Supreme Court remanded for consideration of the summary judgment on the merits.
- On remand the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment and the denial of the new trial, holding Edgefield failed to produce factual support creating a genuine issue of material fact (no evidence grease was present long enough to give constructive notice; mainly speculation and self‑serving statements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because plaintiff's testimony created a genuine issue of material fact about an unreasonably dangerous grease condition | Edgefield: his deposition, affidavit, Greenwood testimony, and other materials show grease on the pathway and employees knew or created the hazard | Defendants: record lacks factual support that grease existed for a period giving constructive notice or that merchant created/should have known of condition | Affirmed — plaintiff's testimony was conclusory/speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment once defendants pointed out absence of factual support |
| Whether there was factual support of merchant notice/creation of condition under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 | Edgefield: grease trap/drainage process made hazard foreseeable and on the pathway; employees maintained the area | Defendants: no evidence grease was present before fall or that employees observed/created the condition | Held for defendants — no evidence of existence/duration of grease to establish actual/constructive notice |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | Edgefield: newly located witness, plans, and expert report were newly discovered and material | Defendants: proffered items were not newly discovered or would not change outcome; plaintiff had ample time over years to locate witnesses | Denial affirmed — evidence not sufficiently "newly discovered" to warrant new trial |
| Whether plaintiff was prejudiced by limited time for discovery and new counsel (request for continuance) | Edgefield (dissent): recent counsel had only weeks to prepare; discovery hindered by prior counsel withdrawal and Katrina displacements; continuance was warranted | Defendants: summary judgment appropriate; no entitlement to delay absent showing of probable injustice | Majority: no abuse of discretion in proceeding; dissent would have reversed for inadequate opportunity to complete discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebert v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 757 So.2d 814 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2000) (appellate courts review summary judgment de novo using same criteria as trial court)
- Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (defines de novo standard for summary judgment review)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (La. 2004) (explains a "genuine issue" is one reasonable persons could disagree about)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (courts may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment)
- Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (material facts defined as those essential to plaintiff's cause of action)
- Sassone v. Elder, 626 So.2d 345 (La. 1993) (doubts on material fact disputes must be resolved against summary judgment)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (defendant not required to prove nonexistence of condition prior to accident)
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (speculation and conclusory assertions insufficient to meet plaintiff's burden opposing summary judgment)
- Walthall v. E-Z Serve Convenience Stores, Inc., 988 F.Supp. 996 (E.D. La. 1997) (lack of evidence that a hazardous substance was present for a period sufficient to impose constructive notice defeats merchant‑liability claim)
- Reed v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 843 So.2d 588 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) (circumstantial evidence required to prove condition existed long enough for merchant to discover it)
- Davenport v. Albertson's, Inc., 774 So.2d 340 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must present circumstantial evidence to show a condition existed for a sufficient time to impose notice)