191 So. 3d 599
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- John Nash sued Rouse’s Market after slipping on spilled rice in an aisle on August 16, 2013, claiming injury.
- Rouse’s filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Nash could not prove the merchant had actual or constructive notice or failed to exercise reasonable care; Rouse’s submitted affidavits and contemporaneous reports.
- Rouse’s evidence showed Aisle 3 was swept at 11:45 a.m., inspected at 11:50 a.m., and the incident was reported at about noon.
- Nash filed an opposition but did not submit affidavits or other factual evidence supporting constructive notice or other required elements under the Merchant Liability Statute.
- Trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Nash’s claims with prejudice; plaintiff appealed, citing Carter v. Hi Nabor.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed: Nash failed to produce factual evidence that the hazardous condition existed for a period sufficient to impute constructive notice or to show lack of reasonable care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because Nash could show merchant had constructive or actual notice or failed to exercise reasonable care | Nash argued Rouse’s own evidence implied the rice was on the floor for ~15 minutes, satisfying the temporal element for constructive notice; invoked Carter to oppose summary judgment | Rouse’s argued its affidavits and records show sweep at 11:45, inspection at 11:50, and fall ~noon—at most a ~10-minute window—and Nash submitted no factual evidence to prove the condition existed long enough or that Rouse’s lacked reasonable care | Affirmed. Summary judgment appropriate because Nash produced no factual evidence to meet the temporal element for constructive notice or otherwise show Rouse’s would fail to exercise reasonable care at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So.2d 1081 (La. 1997) (constructive notice requires proof condition existed for some period before the fall)
- Carter v. Hi Nabor Super Market, LLC, 168 So.3d 698 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2014) (conflicting evidence about existence/timing of hazardous condition can create genuine issues precluding summary judgment)
- Tomaso v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 174 So.3d 679 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard and merchant liability overview)
- Mills v. Cyntreniks Plaza, LLC, 182 So.3d 80 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2015) (failure to prove any one element of merchant liability is fatal to the claim)