294 So.3d 522
La. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Allen Campbell sued Dollar General (DG Louisiana, LLC) after slipping and falling in the store restroom on a wet area allegedly caused by a draining mop bucket.
- Campbell initially named Dolgencorp; DG was later added as the proper defendant and Dolgencorp was dismissed.
- DG moved for summary judgment under La. R.S. 9:2800.6, arguing Campbell could not prove the statutory elements of merchant liability.
- Campbell opposed, attempted to submit photographs and other exhibits late, and argued summary judgment was premature because DG allegedly prevented discovery (including a Rule 1442 deposition). The trial court struck the late exhibits, heard the motion, and granted summary judgment.
- The trial court found Campbell’s deposition showed he did not know what substance he slipped in, how long it was on the floor, or whether employees knew of it; no incident report or other evidence showed DG created or had notice of the condition. Campbell appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural: Was the summary judgment premature because discovery was incomplete? | Campbell: Motion was premature; DG refused meaningful discovery and deposition. | DG: Motion timely (filed ~2 years after being added); no continuance requested; trial court has broad discovery discretion. | Denied — no abuse of discretion; SJ properly heard. |
| Admissibility of exhibits (photographs) | Campbell: Photos were produced to DG during discovery and should be considered. | DG: Exhibits were untimely under art. 966 and not properly filed as summary-judgment evidence. | Exhibits struck as untimely and not considered on the motion. |
| Sufficiency under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 (hazard, notice, reasonable care) | Campbell: Condition presented an unreasonable risk; evidence (photos, mop bucket) supports claim. | DG: Plaintiff cannot identify the substance, its duration, or DG’s notice; no incident report or other evidence of notice or failure to exercise care. | Held for DG — plaintiff failed to produce factual support for the statutory elements; SJ affirmed. |
| Inferences and evidentiary rulings | Campbell: Court should draw inferences favorably and allow proffered evidence/discovery to be considered. | DG: There is no admissible evidence to support inferences; plaintiff did not timely submit evidence or seek continuance/compel discovery. | No favorable inferences could be drawn from admissible evidence (only plaintiff’s deposition); SJ affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Wise, 249 So. 3d 845 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2018) (summary judgment procedure and de novo appellate review)
- Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 144 So. 3d 876 (La. 2014) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Williams v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 217 So. 3d 421 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (elements required for merchant liability under La. R.S. 9:2800.6)
- Pena v. Delchamps, Inc., 960 So. 2d 988 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (unreasonably slippery condition as hazardous condition in slip-and-fall cases)
- Willig v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., 202 So. 3d 1169 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2016) (summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff fails to produce factual support)
- Willis v. Medders, 775 So. 2d 1049 (La. 2000) (factual inferences must be construed in favor of the party opposing summary judgment)