Mills v. Cyntreniks Plaza, L.L.C., 182 So. 3d 80

Background

On Oct. 1, 2010 D’Andrea Mills attended a birthday party at The Lyceum Dean Ballroom in Baton Rouge, a venue operated by Cyntreniks Plaza, L.L.C.; the venue that night had reserved tables for the party but was also open to the public with a cash bar, DJ, dance floor, and security.
Mills slipped and fell on clear liquid and broken glass on the dance floor, suffered fractures requiring surgery, and left without reporting the incident; she later sued Cyntreniks for damages.
Cyntreniks moved for summary judgment under Louisiana’s Merchant Liability Statute (LSA‑R.S. 9:2800.6), arguing Mills could not prove it had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition.
Summary judgment evidence included depositions/affidavit of the venue manager and depositions of Mills and two friends; testimony showed security patrolled but no one knew of the spill before the fall and witnesses could not establish how long the liquid/glass had been present.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Cyntreniks; the appellate majority affirmed, holding The Lyceum qualified as a “merchant” and Mills failed to show actual or constructive notice of the hazard. Costs assessed to Mills.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Merchant Liability Statute apply (is venue a "merchant")?	Mills contested applicability but did not assign error on appeal.	Cyntreniks argued venue was a commercial merchant (sold alcohol at fixed place) so statute governs.	Court: The Lyceum qualified as a merchant (nightclub/lounge selling alcohol at a fixed place).
Did Cyntreniks have actual notice of the liquid/glass?	Mills pointed to security presence and her fall location; argued spilled drink had been served earlier.	Cyntreniks: manager and staff testified they were unaware; no evidence personnel saw the hazard.	Court: No evidence of actual knowledge; Mills failed to prove actual notice.
Did Cyntreniks have constructive notice (hazard existed long enough to be discovered)?	Mills argued testimony about plastic cups and glassware implies spill existed over an hour, creating factual dispute.	Cyntreniks: witnesses could not say how long or how spill occurred; no temporal evidence.	Court: Mills failed to make a positive showing the condition existed long enough for discovery; no constructive notice.
Was summary judgment appropriate?	Mills argued statute application and factual disputes (including Rule 9.10 compliance asserted by dissent).	Cyntreniks asserted absence of factual support for essential elements (notice) entitles it to summary judgment.	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Cyntreniks because plaintiff could not prove actual or constructive notice; did not reach other elements.

Key Cases Cited

Clark v. J‑H‑J, Inc., 136 So.3d 815 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (summary judgment/de novo review and constructive‑notice discussion)
Tomaso v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 174 So.3d 679 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (summary judgment standards and merchant duties)
Labit v. Palms Casino & Truck Stop, Inc., 91 So.3d 540 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (nightclub as commercial establishment under duty to keep premises safe)
Harrison v. Horseshoe Entertainment, 823 So.2d 1124 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (merchant duty to protect invitees and warn of known dangers)
Gregory v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 35 So.3d 458 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (failure to prove temporal element defeats constructive‑notice claim)
Moore v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 824 So.2d 345 (La.) (plaintiff must prove merchant had actual or constructive knowledge)
Coleman v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 721 So.2d 1068 (La. App. 1 Cir.) (summary judgment for merchant where plaintiff failed to meet statutory burdens)
White v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La.) (court need not address additional elements once plaintiff fails on required element)
Nuccio v. Robert, 761 So.2d 84 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (applying merchant statute to lounge patron slip‑and‑fall)
Balias v. Kenny's Key West, Inc., 836 So.2d 289 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (merchant statute applied to lounge selling goods/food)