267 So. 3d 738
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Deliveryman Carl Edgefield sued Audubon Nature Institute and insurer after allegedly slipping on grease on the Clubhouse back steps in Dec. 2004 and suffering serious back injuries.
- Edgefield sued in 2005; the restaurant-intervenor asserted subrogation for workers’ comp payments. Litigation spanned ~12+ years with multiple counsel changes and discovery interruptions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in 2017, attaching depositions showing Edgefield’s uncertainty about seeing grease before his fall and testimony from Audubon employees denying knowledge of grease on the porch or seeing a fall.
- Edgefield opposed with excerpts of his deposition and affidavits claiming grease stains near grease-trap drains and later filed a motion for new trial asserting newly discovered evidence (a witness, plans, and an expert report). The trial court granted summary judgment and denied new trial.
- The appellate court initially reviewed only the new-trial denial; the Louisiana Supreme Court vacated and remanded for merits review of the summary judgment. On remand the appellate court affirmed summary judgment and denial of new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edgefield produced factual support to defeat summary judgment on merchant liability (unreasonable risk, notice, lack of reasonable care) | Edgefield: his testimony, Greenwood’s deposition, and affidavits show grease from the grease-trap on the path/steps and create genuine factual disputes | Defendants: record lacks factual support — Edgefield couldn’t see grease before falling, no evidence grease existed long enough for notice, employees deny seeing grease or the fall | Held: Affirmed summary judgment — Edgefield’s testimony is speculative/self-serving and insufficient to create genuine material fact issues once defendants met their burden. |
| Whether circumstantial evidence showed the grease existed long enough to impose constructive notice under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B)(2) | Edgefield: placement and maintenance of grease trap and testimony about draining process make it probable grease existed on pathway | Defendants: no evidence of accumulation, duration, or prior incidents; no expert or corroboration | Held: No — plaintiff failed to present circumstantial evidence that grease existed for a discoverable period; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Whether the motion for new trial presented newly discovered evidence warranting relief | Edgefield: located a witness (Johnny Polk), plans, and an expert report after the summary judgment | Defendants: the proffered items were not newly discovered or would not change the summary judgment outcome | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion — evidence was not newly discovered; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by not allowing more discovery/continuance before ruling on summary judgment | Edgefield: counsel changed shortly before the hearing and lacked adequate time to complete discovery; continuance necessary for fair opportunity | Defendants: summary judgment may proceed when record shows no genuine issue; no probable injustice shown | Held: Majority: no abuse of discretion; dissent would have remanded given discovery prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebert v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 757 So.2d 814 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (appellate de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (criteria for appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (La. 2004) (definition of a "genuine" or triable issue)
- Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 639 So.2d 730 (La. 1994) (limits on weighing credibility or evidence on summary judgment)
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (defendant not required to prove negative; plaintiff must show evidence that condition existed long enough for discovery)
- Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 764 So.2d 37 (La. 2000) (speculation and conclusory assertions insufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (materiality defined as facts essential to plaintiff’s cause of action)
- Sassone v. Elder, 626 So.2d 345 (La. 1993) (summary judgment standards and resolving doubts against the motion)