Melancon v. Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken, 59 So. 3d 513

Melancon slipped on a slick floor exiting a Popeye’s in Grand Coteau, Louisiana in Sept. 2008 and sued in Jan. 2009.
TMC Foods moved for summary judgment in June 2010 arguing no genuine issue of material fact and that it maintained the floor reasonably.
The trial court granted summary judgment in July 2010.
Melancon appealed, asserting genuine issues existed about whether the freshly mopped floor created an unreasonable risk.
Louisiana’s 9:2800.6 framework governs the premises-liability elements, including unreasonable risk, foreseeability, notice, and reasonable care.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Melancon can prove an unreasonable risk from a freshly mopped floor.	Melancon (Melancon) argues the wet floor created an unreasonable risk.	TMC asserts signs and normal cleaning practices render the risk reasonable.	No genuine issue; signs and care show no unreasonable risk.
Whether TMC adequately warned patrons about the mopped floor.	Melancon contends warnings were insufficient.	TMC had multiple visible wet-floor signs.	Operational warning signs sufficed; no failure of warning.
Whether plaintiff's inattentiveness absolves defendant of liability.	Melancon’s own inattention contributed to the fall.	Inattentiveness does not shift burden; signs supported reasonable care.	Inattentiveness does not defeat summary judgment; signs were adequate.

Magnon v. Collins, 739 So.2d 191 (La. 1999) (summary-judgment standard and material-fact analysis)
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (no shifting burden without proving elements of claim)
Rowell v. Hollywood Casino Shreveport, 996 So.2d 476 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (premises-cleanup and signage can negate unreasonable-risk finding)
Lee v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, Inc., 960 So.2d 1042 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2007) (wet-floor signage and maintenance values in negligence)