Moy v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 117 So. 3d 611

Mona Moy slipped and fell near checkout counter 11 at a Brookshire Super One Foods on May 19, 2010; she alleged she slipped in a puddle of water and later had arthroscopic knee surgery.
Store layout: 11 side-by-side checkout lanes perpendicular to the exit; customers bagged their own groceries.
Incident report recorded plaintiff’s statement that she slipped on water that had been "already wiped up." Employees (Johnston and Plumley) testified they wiped the area but found no water; assistant manager Baker prepared the report and did not speak with those employees before filing it.
Surveillance video (≈16 minutes before, ≈18 minutes after) showed no visible liquid and multiple customers and employees traversing the spot without slipping; two carts left the area 22 seconds before Moy’s fall.
Trial court found Moy failed to prove constructive notice (the statutory temporal element) under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and entered judgment for Brookshire; Moy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a hazardous condition (water) on the floor	Moy testified to a plate- or basketball-sized puddle; employees said there was water	Employees testified they wiped but found no water; video shows no liquid	Trial court implicitly doubted Moy’s claim; not necessary to decide because other elements failed
Constructive notice (temporal element under La. R.S. 9:2800.6)	Moy argued water was present long enough prior to fall to establish constructive notice	Brookshire argued no evidence water existed long enough to be discovered by exercise of reasonable care	Court held Moy failed to prove the required temporal element; no constructive notice established
Whether merchant created or had actual notice of condition	Moy contended store knew or should have known of hazard	Brookshire pointed to lack of creation/actual notice and routine checkout duties	Court found no evidence merchant created or had actual notice; plaintiff bore burden and failed
Sufficiency/credibility of evidence (surveillance video and witness testimony)	Moy argued employee testimony impeached by video and reporting errors	Brookshire argued video and testimony show no spill and permissible inferences favor defendant	Court deferred to trial court credibility findings and video review; no manifest error in rejecting Moy’s claims

Milton v. E & M Oil Co., 47 So.3d 1091 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2010) (merchant-liability statute governs slip-and-fall claims)
Chunn v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 18 So.3d 179 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (failure to prove any statutory element is fatal)
White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (no inference of constructive notice without proof of temporal element)
Heath v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 999 So.2d 166 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (temporal element may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence)
Jones v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 847 So.2d 43 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2003) (trial court factual findings in slip-and-fall reviewed for manifest error)
Stobart v. State through Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (where two permissible views exist, appellate court may not overturn factfinder)
Virgil v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 507 So.2d 825 (La. 1987) (deference to trial court’s credibility evaluations)
Williams v. State Farm Ins. Co., 103 So.3d 433 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2012) (deference to trial court on credibility and manifest error standard)